# Zachary Houghton resigns as an ENnies judge



## reveal (Sep 25, 2008)

Interesting read. I think Zach did a great job last year keeping people informed on the process.

RPG Blog II: My Resignation From The ENnies: An Explanation



> My Resignation From The ENnies: An Explanation
> 
> The thought this year, among certain members of the ENnies, was that the categories of Best Podcast and Best Electronic Product should no longer need to send in a CD, but rather could more conveniently send a link to their product. The hope was that this would make the awards more accessible, not only podcasters, fan sites, and shoestring-budget pdf-only companies. It was also hoped that this would stimulate international submissions by bypassing the postage/customs headache that mailing from overseas could be.
> 
> ...


----------



## Runestar (Sep 25, 2008)

No offense, but who even takes the Ennies seriously to begin with? 

Quoted from another website.



> By Meg (formerly WizO Autumn).
> 
> This is purely about the ENnies Awards-- "The" awards in the gaming industry.
> 
> ...




There are a lot of things apparently wrong with it, and admission fees appear to be the least of them...


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 25, 2008)

I do not know all the facts of this, but I will say the following.

I'm behind the notion of barriers to entry, in terms of submitting a CD of your best episode. The alternative is a deluge of crap that podcasters will submit simply because they "may as well". This is a recipe for disaster. The reality is that there are no serious contenders for the best podcast out there, IMO, that could possibly claim not to be able to afford the launch of six envelopes with 6 CD-R's in them. The argument is as spurious as ever.

Secondly, I can only agree with Runestar's sentiment that some people are taking this way too seriously for their own good.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2008)

Runestar said:


> No offense, but who even takes the Ennies seriously to begin with?
> 
> There are a lot of things apparently wrong with it, and admission fees appear to be the least of them...




Like all awards some people take them seriously and some people don't.  Not everything in that quoted post was accurate though for instance a small error is that only Zach was the only one blogging about the ENnies.  At the very least I was also doing that.  Mistakes did happen and each year the ENnies regroup and try to find a way to decrease the chances of mistakes.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 25, 2008)

Runestar said:


> No offense, but who even takes the Ennies seriously to begin with?
> 
> Quoted from another website.
> 
> ...




Someone disagrees with the nominations, and thinks judges _shouldn't_ nominate their favourites?  Should they be nominating products they _don't_ like?

Eh, much ado about nothing.  No new policies have been implemented.  If they had, they'd have been announced by Denise (who happens to be away on holiday at present).


----------



## Berandor (Sep 25, 2008)

I for one applaud Zachary the First for not only being very forthcoming about the proceedings last year but also for now leaving the EnNies on a decision he cannot subscribe to. Well played. I think my vote for him was well-placed.


----------



## Qualidar (Sep 25, 2008)

Runestar said:


> quoted from another website.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Apparently Meg doesn't understand that the process isn't objective: it's subjective. Their job is to nominate what they like. Her not agreeing with them doesn't make their choices wrong.


----------



## Treebore (Sep 25, 2008)

I only take the nomination part of the ENnies seriously. In the years where I bought everything I know the judges definitely nominated the best products available in the given categories, I bought and read, and often used, those same products. 

The actual awards are nothing more than a popularity contest. So I personally pay them no attention, unless a product I liked won. Then I go to the respective companies web site and congratulate them on their win.

As for the podcasts, I went and listened to all of those nominated this past year. They were entertaining, but largely every single one of them had "amateurish" issues, usually bad sound quality, interviewers who mumbled, and were still several steps from what I would call professionally polished.

Now there was one Podcast nominee where I did go to more recent podcasts, and they were definitely improving. The sound wasn't all over the place, the questions and answers were easy to hear, etc... and definitely getting closer to sounding professional.


As for "Favoritism" judging, I doubt it. The good stuff is what gets nominated. Good stuff by default tends to be "favorites". It being good is why it becomes a favorite.

Plus we need to remember the conditions under which these products are judged. They are read. Usually quickly. The judges have far, far from enough time to read and play with these products. They are doing quick and dirty reviews so they can judge them against other products.

They also game during this period, hopefully. I hope they don't have to give up their gaming in order to have time to do the judging. Some of these products will (hopefully) get used during those games. So these judges get to see some things in actual play, but not the vast majority of what they have to judge. This also creates a problem. 

So we just have to understand, and accept, that the ENnies Judging is largely a glorified review process that is then turned over to the general on line community for the "Popular Vote", and winners are determined.

So until someone can come up with a system that works better, the ENnies is the best we have available.

As for Podcasts paying a fee, yes they should. Every other print publisher is paying a fee, the 6 books they donate to the process. Podcasters think they should get to submit at no cost to themselves at all? Then accuse the ENnies fo being unfair? Who's demanding the free ride?

If Podacsters are really concerned about fairness then they should be happy to pay some kind of fee, White Wolf, for an example, lost out on the sales of 6 books for Changling alone to be judged. Goodman Games lost out on 6 copies of CAstle White Rock ( a $100 product!!).

Pay up Podcasters, its only fair to the others that you have a cost as well.


----------



## davethegame (Sep 25, 2008)

Treebore said:


> Pay up Podcasters, its only fair to the others that you have a cost as well.




It might not be quite so diplomatic of me to weigh in here because I have some conflicting issues in the whole matter, but I've got to say this:

Bloggers and podcasters, as a whole, do it because we love it. There are some pockets of professionals who actively make money and have budgets to do advertising and whatnot, but the majority of us spend our time and effort to entertain people for free. We do it because we love games and we love talking about games. Clearly, the Ennies consider them "fan products" and not professional endeavors. 

So basically, what is being asked is for people who already spend a lot of time and effort giving away things for free and never recouping the costs to go ahead and spend even more time and money to submit their work on CDs, mainly to gain recognition. Though I'm sure there is a boost in readership and any ad revenue, I would be willing to guess it's not huge.

I was infuriated and then heartbroken to see the "Fan Product" category last year. Podcasts, websites, and a PDF adventure all lumped in together. Not only are those things incomparable, the ones that did make it were in some cases baffling. The honorable mention website hadn't been updated in quite some time, and I know for a fact that there were other entrants who showed a higher standard of quality and were still being regularly updated, but didn't make it past the nomination phase. 

(Thankfully, the site that won the award is "one of ours" so that made me feel a bit better  )

From what I hear now, it looks like that situation is going to change, which is quite a shame. I know I'm not objective at this at all, but running the new RPG Bloggers Network, there are TONS of quality sites out there, and this next year could be quite big for RPG websites. Yet from Zach's comments, it seems like it'll be a messed up category again, with the same (or worse) problems as last year. We'd love to get recognized for our efforts in something as big as the Ennies, as I'm sure our podcasting brethren would, but if the process is onerous it's not going to make anyone in those spheres happy.

I have the utmost respect for the organizers and judges involved in the process and the time it takes. Awards are a really tough thing to tackle, as you're always going to have complaints about the way things are run, people's assessment of the products that do make it, etc. That's not an easy job any way you slice it. But I think it's important to take a long hard look at how things are being run to make as many of those with stakes in the awards happy as you can, from the judges to the possible entrants. Clearly even those I would consider "insiders" are having some issues, and so it looks like something should be done.

Alright, I'm done


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 25, 2008)

davethegame said:


> Bloggers and podcasters, as a whole, do it because we love it.




This is true of the vast majority of print publishers, too.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 25, 2008)

Please see the ENnies website for our announcement regarding Zachary's resignation.

The ENnie Awards- Index Page


----------



## davethegame (Sep 25, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> This is true of the vast majority of print publishers, too.




You're right, and my fault for implying otherwise.

But print publishers generally have the expectation of making money as well, along with advertising budgets that involve giving away promotional copies.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2008)

davethegame said:


> I was infuriated and then heartbroken to see the "Fan Product" category last year. Podcasts, websites, and a PDF adventure all lumped in together.




This was done because of lack of entries all around.  It is not something that we wanted to have happen, but it was either lump them together or not have them as part of the awards at all.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 25, 2008)

As someone who is relatively new to ENWorld, and new to the ENnies (this is the first year I knew anything about them and voted in), these revelations bother me.  Maybe people take ENnei winners seriously, maybe they don't, but I know that before I joined ENWorld, and I saw an "ENnie Award Winner" tag on an item on RPGnow or other places, I thought it actually meant something and gave the item a closer look because of it.  After reading some of this stuff, I can say I won't be voting in the ENnies again, or giving any consideration to that "Award Winner" tag again.  Whether some publishers opinions or encounters with the ENnies and the ENnie judges were as expressed or not, the fact that an actual judge reveals that there is favoritism based on monetery incentives for judges is a huge deal.  As I said before, I don't know that much about the ENnies or how they are structured, nominated, and judged, but this sounds like a pretty strong and valid instigation of impropriety.  ENnies have just lost any validity with me.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 25, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> the fact that an actual judge reveals that there is favoritism based on monetery incentives for judges is a huge deal.  As I said before, I don't know that much about the ENnies or how they are structured, nominated, and judged, but this sounds like a pretty strong and valid instigation of impropriety.  ENnies have just lost any validity with me.




Please read the announcement.  You're welcome to consider the ENnies as valid or not as you wish, but (a) Zachary did NOT say there is favoritism based on monetery incentives for judges; and (b) if he had it would be a blatant untruth.


----------



## davethegame (Sep 25, 2008)

Crothian said:


> This was done because of lack of entries all around.  It is not something that we wanted to have happen, but it was either lump them together or not have them as part of the awards at all.




Sure, I've heard the reason, but look at it from the point of view of someone whose website or podcast wasn't included... knowing the reason doesn't make it any less frustrating.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 25, 2008)

davethegame said:


> Sure, I've heard the reason, but look at it from the point of view of someone whose website or podcast wasn't included... knowing the reason doesn't make it any less frustrating.




It's a policy; it was there before anyone submitted anything; everyone knew about it; it has always been there.

10 entries for a category, or it gets merged into another category.  That's how it works.

If there were only nine entries, all a nomination would mean is "it wasn't in the worst half".  Nothing to be proud of, really.  Even 10 is fairly low in my opinion, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

The fault does not lie with the ENnies, and it's not the ENnies you should be "infuriated" at and "heartbroken" about.  The ENnies judges don't enter products, they just judge them.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 25, 2008)

Well, to me, judges being paid means monetary incentive, I just don't see how this isn't, no matter what "label" is applied to it (a flat compensation for judges I could understand, but a "percentage" of entrance fees is another story, especially if, as implied, not everyone pays an entrance fee).  Also, I did read the announcement.  Basically it says to me that those people Zachary Houghton worked with on the ENnies consider his statement as either speaking out of school, mistakenly wrong, misinformed, or blatantly incorrect (in other words - lying - and not in exact words but definitely by implication).  I don't know Zach, and I don't know the other people who work on the ENnies.  But, in my experience, people don't make decisions like he did lightly, and it seems he has strong procedural and ethical differences with his fellow staff members and judges.  If even half of what he said is true (and why would he lie), then to me, that seems to cast considerable doubt on the fairness and validity of the awards.

If I can't trust them, then I'll disregard them.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 25, 2008)

This is still over the silly disc thing? I guess they still think they should get an exemption instead of being glad that such categories are even considered award-worthy.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 25, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Well, to me, judges being paid means monetary incentive




Judges are NOT being paid.

You are welcome to disregard to ENnies for any reason you wish; I'll not argue with you on that. But be informed that judges are not being paid.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Well, to me, judges being paid means monetary incentive, I just don't see how this isn't, no matter what "label" is applied to it (a flat compensation for judges I could understand, but a "percentage" of entrance fees is another story, especially if, as implied, not everyone pays an entrance fee).




Judges have never gotten paid.  What Zach is talking about is an idea that was talked about but never implemented.  There are lots of ideas that get talked about behind the scenes but only those policies that get announced are the ones you should be concerned with.


----------



## davethegame (Sep 25, 2008)

Morrus said:


> It's a policy; it was there before anyone submitted anything; everyone knew about it; it has always been there.
> 
> 10 entries for a category, or it gets merged into another category.  That's how it works.
> 
> ...




OK, back up a sec. I'm not saying I was infuriated at the Ennies. As I specifically said, I have a lot of respect for everyone involved in the Ennies. (If I didn't think they were important, I wouldn't have been liveblogging them, and possibly the only person to have done so.)

But coming in late to the process and looking at that category, and knowing all the work that goes into running an RPG website and putting together an RPG podcast, it was tough to accept that all those things were in a category fighting for the same honor. That's the infuriating and heartbreaking part, not directed anywhere in particular.

I'm not sure what the reason was that there were so few entrants into the category. At the time, I didn't know that 10 was the cutoff, but I was only helping with the submissions of other people's sites and not my own (and had I known, I would have made more of an effort to get my site and other sites to enter.) 

Obviously I know now the rule, and I feel pretty confidant that there are more things in place to mobilize the needed number this year. I am hoping, however, that the staff realizes that there is some frustration all around and reaches out to all of us here on the fan side (bloggers, site runners, podcasters, adventure makers, etc.) to improve the experience for everyone.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 25, 2008)

Morrus said:


> Judges are NOT being paid.
> 
> You are welcome to disregard to ENnies for any reason you wish; I'll not argue with you on that. But be informed that judges are not being paid.




If you say they aren't being paid, then I believe they aren't.  I'm sorry if my saying that has upset you.  I was just basing that from what Zach said in his release.  From the way he stated it, it sounded like a done deal.  Perhaps a more correct way of saying it then is that it was _proposed_ that judges get paid.

Quote:
"But it clearly is not to be. The ENnies feel that if you submit via link, you should pay an unprecedented submission fee to support the awards. In other words, they are asking you to pay them to consider your product's quality for the award. *This donation, as proposed would go mainly to the ENnies,* *with a percentage going to each judge*. Several individuals also wanted this as another "barrier" to the awards process, one of them going so far as to worry "we'll get tons of ill-considered crap that isn't worth the time to download". Hardly the right attitude for a judge, I'd say."

"I will tell you right now, I will not accept one red cent of that money. I'm not saying this because I want a pat on the back, I just want you to know where I stand, as I always promised I'd be direct with you. I disapprove of this measure entirely, and find it to be a move in the wrong direction for the openness and accessibility of the awards. Instead of making a move that in no way hurt the ENnies but instead possibly improved awards participation, ease, and lowering cost for the entrants, they chose to go with a measure that provided a new income source for the awards, but that would do nothing to grow the awards in any sense. Bear in mind, this is despite the ENnies allowing several last-minute "usual suspect" and much-vaunted companies to submit via link at the very end of the submission period last year (for no charge, of course)! I'm not sure where this will lead, or what impact it will have. But at least you'll know where I stood."

If this proposal was not accepted, then great also (I believe that's what *Crothian* said).

But then this brings up these questions for me:

If this proposal was rejected, why didn't Zach say so in his release?

If he wasn't there, or if this was decided after Zach left, what was the reason behind rejecting this proposal, and did Zach's resignation have anything to do with it?

If the proposal was rejected while Zach was still involved, how is it that he would make this such a prominent part of his reasons for resignation, especially if it had already been resolved?


Short of saying that he was speaking out of school, or was incorrect, the release from the ENnies didn't cover the above questions.

Maybe a point by point of what is incorrect in his release and statement of resignation, and possible explanations as to how any misunderstandings may have occured, might clear things up.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> If this proposal was rejected, why didn't Zach say so in his release?




For many of those questions you have to ask Zach.  As far as I know he didn't talk to any of the staff about being frustrated with things or that he was thinking about resigning.  The hint I had that he was thinking of resigning was reading that he resigned.  

With any group or committee there is a lot of back of forth of ideas and who wants to do what.  We are still in the discussion phase of many of the issues he's talking about.  I'm not going to guess as the reasons why Zach said and did what he said and did.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 25, 2008)

Crothian said:


> Judges have never gotten paid. What Zach is talking about is an idea that was talked about but never implemented. There are lots of ideas that get talked about behind the scenes but only those policies that get announced are the ones you should be concerned with.




I stand corrected about judges being paid.

I'm sure that the ENnies staff would have preferred that things talked about behind closed doors, and things proposed but not accepted, had not been made known to the general gaming public.  But Zach's statement has now made that moot.  Now that the cat's out of the bag, these things that Zach said make me wonder about the intentions and ethics of some on the ENnies staff.  I, and the general gaming public, have a funny way of deciding for ourselves what we should and shouldn't be concerned with.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 25, 2008)

Crothian said:


> For many of those questions you have to ask Zach. As far as I know he didn't talk to any of the staff about being frustrated with things or that he was thinking about resigning. The hint I had that he was thinking of resigning was reading that he resigned.
> 
> With any group or committee there is a lot of back of forth of ideas and who wants to do what. We are still in the discussion phase of many of the issues he's talking about. I'm not going to guess as the reasons why Zach said and did what he said and did.





True, _some_ of those would definitely need to be answered by him (speak up if you're listening in).

But, some of those don't need to be answered by him (and weren't answered by anyone else, yet):

_Was the proposal to give a percentage of the entry money to judges rejected before or after he left?_

_What were the reasons why the proposal was rejected?_

_If it was rejected after he left, what role did his resignation have in the decision?_


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 25, 2008)

I haven't been involved in these discussions, but I have had a lot of interactions with nearly all of the ENnies staff, and I cannot imagine any of them being motivated from greed. The ENnies were a money drain for a long while, but the people in charge still put them on because they wanted to honor the folks who make the games we love. 

The judges each have to read tens of thousands of pages of products, and do so in a period of, what, less than 2 months? They don't get paid for it, aside from the benefit of having a ton of gaming products that I believe at least a few of them auction off.

They're good people. Hell, in the gaming industry there isn't even enough money for it to be worth trying to be greedy. Even if the awards were considering an entry fee, it would go to covering costs, not lining the pockets of the judges.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> make me wonder about the intentions and ethics of some on the ENnies staff.




Honestly, I wouldn't read to much into it.  With a group of people sometimes it is good to suggest ideas that are not going to be liked to get people to talk about them and see if that discussion comes up with a good idea from a bad one.  That a bad idea was shot down I would think would be a positive thing.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Sep 25, 2008)

Crothian said:


> For many of those questions you have to ask Zach. As far as I know he didn't talk to any of the staff about being frustrated with things or that he was thinking about resigning. The hint I had that he was thinking of resigning was reading that he resigned.




He was apparently getting advice from "the RPGPundit", according to a thread on theRPGSite. If he listened to anything that guy had to say, it would explain a lot.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> _Was the proposal to give a percentage of the entry money to judges rejected before or after he left?_
> 
> _What were the reasons why the proposal was rejected?_
> 
> _If it was rejected after he left, what role did his resignation have in the decision?_




Nothing has been officially rejected or accepted at this time.  Denise, the Business Manager, is away on a weekend vacation I believe, so discussions with her have to wait till she gets back.  

No one though has supported the idea that I have seen and I no one seems like they were thinking of changing their mind. 

His resignation more then likely with mean that we wait for the new judge to be contacted and he (the new judge) will get a chance like everyone else to weigh in on the decision.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 25, 2008)

Crothian said:


> Honestly, I wouldn't read to much into it. With a group of people sometimes it is good to suggest ideas that are not going to be liked to get people to talk about them and see if that discussion comes up with a good idea from a bad one. That a bad idea was shot down I would think would be a positive thing.





You're right, that is absolutely a positive thing. It also shows that there are some very good people involved with the ENnies. I would assume that since ENWorld is *Moruss*'s baby, that he's involved in at least some capacity, and I've never seen or read anything that would imply that he was anything less than an honorable man, or not deserving of respect for what he has accomplished here (at ENWorld). And although I haven't been around ENWorld for any substantial time, every post I've ever read by you (*Crothian*) has always been fair, informative, and even _sometimes_ witty. As long as there are people such as you guys involved, it can't be all bad.

Healthy debate is always good. Playing devils advocate within a group, in order to bring out good ideas from that group, can also be good (not that I've ever done this myself). But bad ideas presented because of questionable motivation, is not good. While the fact that bad ideas are shot down is positive, the fact that bad proposals, possibly based on questionable motivations, are even proposed in the first place, is not positive (I'm not saying that is the case, but Zachs statement seems to imply this). The idea that this might be happening may be seen by some (apparently including Zach) as a cancer within the group. He apparently feels strongly that this is happening.  Of course, as you said before, these last thoughts would be things that he would have to answer, or comment on himself.



By the way, what about those other questions? Never Mind, I see you answered in another post while I was typing.


----------



## Qualidar (Sep 25, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> By the way, what about those other questions?




Playing devil's advocate myself: they were private conversations, so they're none of your business?


----------



## justanobody (Sep 25, 2008)

Runestar said:


> No offense, but who even takes the Ennies seriously to begin with?




How seriously you take any awards, Emmys, Oscar, etc is a matter of personal choice. The fact that IF the judges were expecting payment and compensation to allow digital medium users entry is the problem.

A link provides no less than a physical product where digital medium is concerned. Actually for podcasts, or other digital media it shows how well the method of delivery is for such media and should be taken into consideration from a judging standpoint.

If the judges got fre product for judging and just got upset they had to find a link and charge a cost to submit things then there is the problem. Judges should get nothing from individual contestants in anything. That just sounds like buying votes to me.

That is just one part I wanted to mention about this and think the person stepping down as a judge has done the honorable thing and the others advocating for the other way are doing the wrong thing in the nature and spirit of any kind of contest where awards are given out.

So even if the Ennies are a joke event, the judging and application process should be fair to all, and disconnected from each other lest you venture into the area of buying votes.


----------



## Qualidar (Sep 25, 2008)

justanobody said:


> How seriously you take any awards, Emmys, Oscar, etc is a matter of personal choice. The fact that IF the judges were expecting payment and compensation to allow digital medium users entry is the problem.
> 
> A link provides no less than a physical product where digital medium is concerned. Actually for podcasts, or other digital media it shows how well the method of delivery is for such media and should be taken into consideration from a judging standpoint.
> 
> ...




Are you posting this before reading the rest of the posts in this thread?


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 25, 2008)

Qualidar said:


> Playing devil's advocate myself: they were private conversations, so they're none of your business?




Of which everyone is definitely allowed to play Devils Advocate whenever they want to (or Devils _Minnion_ if you prefer).

However, as to whether it's my business or not, the winners of these awards get to put that little "ENnies Award Winner" tag on there products. That little tag is intended to show that products superiority over other like products, and is intended to show this to customers. Since I am a customer, the validity of that tag does matter to me. So, yes, it _is_ my business.

Now, if those on the ENnies staff don't want to answer, or feel that they don't need to answer, _that is completely within *their* perogative_. If I want an answer, it's completely within my perogative to ask the question. At the same time, I'm not stupid enough, or arrogant enough, to expect that the have to, or even will, answer me. Although, I definitely appreciate when they do answer.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 25, 2008)

Blogging: Making Burnt Bridges Since 1994.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 25, 2008)

justanobody said:


> If the judges got fre product for judging and just got upset they had to find a link and charge a cost to submit things then there is the problem. Judges should get nothing from individual contestants in anything. That just sounds like buying votes to me.




The free products the judges get are the entries that the publishers submit. Review copies, in other words, provided so that no judge's ability to participate in the selection has to depend on his or her disposable income. 

Now, I can understand that it's easy enough to check out a link online, but the quality of the site or podcast viewing/listening experience could be affected by the quality and speed of the judge's internet connection. So I don't exactly think that asking the submission to be on a cd is off base. The podcasters really should want the judges to be able to review at their own best convenience and in the best conditions they can manage.

As far as thinking of it as requiring every entrant to have put up something _of value_, whether in the form of the product in question or an entry fee, wherever that fee goes, I don't see any problem with broaching the discussion. Requiring some kind of value from everyone would fit some definitions of fairness, so I don't see it being a discussion to avoid, even if the idea is eventually rejected.

Personally, I'm not sure that resigning and letting a blog post be the primary notification mechanism for it is really a good idea or tactful plan.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 25, 2008)

To clarify something, I do not see the ENnies as a joke. I realize that it's not the equivalent in scope or impact as award presentations in the entertainment industry, and that there is a certain amount of fan participation and lighthearted fun involved in it. However, to a 3pp, that little award tag on their product can make a big difference. In an industry where there is a lot of competition for a relatively small part of the pie (since the 800 pound gorilla owns the majority of that pie), that kind of endorsement can be a huge thing. IMO, based on principal, it _always_ matters whether something is honest or fair, whether it matters in the greater scheme of things or not. Now I'm not saying the ENnies aren't fair and honest, but in this type of thing, even the appearance of unfairness or impropriety can be very damaging. Clarifying questions about this can only help with customer confidence.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 25, 2008)

Aren't 100 packs of CD-R and DVD-Rs like, what, 25 bucks? And if you get nominated for your free service, don't you get something back--pride, prestige in the hobby, the remote possibility of ad revenue in the distant future? And, I'm sorry, but I just don't care that there's a grab-bag category or two. If it bothers the podcast community or fan site community, I don't know, perhaps you could podcast or blog about it next year? And encourage each other to submit their shows/pages?

I am failing to get the moral outrage here, absent a really exorbitant fee that pushes the total cost into 3 figures. 

Perhaps someone could explain it to me? 'Cause if the judges aren't getting paid there's not even any smoke here and I write this off as one guy failing his wisdom check.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 25, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Now, I can understand that it's easy enough to check out a link online, but the quality of the site or podcast viewing/listening experience could be affected by the quality and speed of the judge's internet connection. So I don't exactly think that asking the submission to be on a cd is off base.




Exactly. Imagine how pissed you'd be if you lost because one judge was using Internet Explorer 6!


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 25, 2008)

roguerouge said:


> Exactly. Imagine how pissed you'd be if you lost because one judge was using Internet Explorer 6!




Or Windows _Mojave_!


----------



## The_Universe (Sep 25, 2008)

I am a judge. Due to the conditions of my employment, I couldn't accept a single cent of money from the ENnies even if I wanted to (I don't). 

If, indeed, any fee is ever enacted for any category, I won't see a dime. That money will instead support the ever-growing administrative costs of the awards, which are currently paid for by fundraising activities (dream date auctions, etc.), corporate sponsors (Avatar Art, Your Games Now, etc.), and the out-of-pocket donations of the award organizers.


----------



## Meghan (Sep 25, 2008)

Qualidar said:


> Apparently Meg doesn't understand that the process isn't objective: it's subjective. Their job is to nominate what they like. Her not agreeing with them doesn't make their choices wrong.






Morrus said:


> Someone disagrees with the nominations, and thinks judges _shouldn't_ nominate their favourites?  Should they be nominating products they _don't_ like?




Not quite.  I have a problem with them declaring their favorites THEN the submissions come in and low and behold, the favorites are on that list.  I would expect that a judge gets a pile of submissions and _then_  delve into them with an open mind.  I would expect that they not have their mind made up before they actually get the submissions.  I would expect that a quality award system not ask their favorites to submit.  

A judge should be impartial and let the products on the table sway their decision.  If the nominations are just going to go to their favorites anyway, then 1) why have a submission process at all? and 2) they need to call themselves something other than judges.  And if that is the case, then the process for electing judges should be changed. 

Expecting an arbiter to hear all sides of the story before making a decision is perfectly rational in my eyes.

I have a problem with them getting their personal favorites on the nomination list.  That's slightly dirty any way you look at it.

But the larger problem is the nomination in general.  There's no criteria for judging.  There needs to be a rubric of some sorts to ensure judges are looking at the same criteria.

For example, my podcast was recently nominated for a Parsec Award- the premiere award for geek culture podcasts.  It was a big deal- flew to DragonCon and everything for it.  

They have a set rubric for judging that includes things like "How well does the entry represent it's category?", "Production Values", "quality of content" etc.  The ENnies would vastly benefit from some sort of structure to the judging.  

ENnies aren't that cut and dry, but they could take a page from other award systems.




Treebore said:


> Pay up Podcasters, its only fair to the others that you have a cost as well.




No.  The mission of the ENnies is that the judges get exactly what the fan gets.  That makes perfect sense.  They should judge the same product as is "on the shelves".  

When a product is freely available though- seriously?  "Pay up"?  That doesn't even make sense.  My product is available for free.  I pay to have it available for free.  I don't even break even on this venture much less expect to make a profit like a publisher.  I expect to follow the same rules as anyone else in the system- give the judges what I give the fans.

The argument over the podcasts on discs is long gone, and in my eyes, vastly blown out of proportion.  No podcast who submitted (myself included) had any problem whatsoever with submitting discs.  I think I would _rather_ submit on a disc than risk a judge not being able to download an episode.  So the disc issue is burried, done, and moot.  

It seems the paying issue is fairly moot as well.  



Crothian said:


> This was done because of lack of entries all around.  It is not something that we wanted to have happen, but it was either lump them together or not have them as part of the awards at all.




But the issue- once again- is that the blame keeps getting put on podcasts.  I don't have all of the information, but it seems from a survey of podcasters, that the podcast category had enough entries.  It was the website category that lacked entries.  

Ok- but then why have 4 of the 6 (including the honorable mention) be websites?  Why make it sound like the "blame" lay with podcasts?  

This is only an educated guess, and if I'm wrong I will humbly retract this, but I asked and was told the numbers weren't allowed to be released.  



WayneLigon said:


> This is still over the silly disc thing? I guess they still think they should get an exemption instead of being glad that such categories are even considered award-worthy.




No.  No one brought up the "silly disc thing" and my entry which was re-posted here only mentioned it to give my audience who didn't follow the scuffle the background story.  And I wanted to point out that the only podcasters complaining about it were ones who didn't enter and mostly had little interest in entering anyway.  

So- once again- I would like for the ENnies to be taken seriously.  I really would.  They have the audience and capacity to do so.  I would just like to see the system learn from mistakes and make some changes to improve.  Isn't that what all of the entries/ hopefuls are doing as well?

And, since Runestar didn't provide the link:

My original post  (and the ensuing conversation) is on my website here.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 26, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> True, _some_ of those would definitely need to be answered by him (speak up if you're listening in).
> 
> But, some of those don't need to be answered by him (and weren't answered by anyone else, yet):
> 
> ...




None of the above.  It was suggested and discussed a bit, then Denise went away on holiday.  That's it.

And the suggestion (I don't recall who made it - one of the judges, I think) was for a dollar ($1) to cover judges' download costs in case of insane quantities of megabytes of products being downloaded, as I recall.

Frankly, it was just an idea someone proposed, and a conversation that alsted a couple of days of occasional emails going back and forth between the judges, and I hadn't even weighed in on what I thought of it yet.  

A mountain is being made out of a molehill.  Some people had a conversation; that's it.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 26, 2008)

The_Universe said:


> I am a judge. Due to the conditions of my employment, I couldn't accept a single cent of money from the ENnies even if I wanted to (I don't). . .




Just curious, is this due to employment outside of your role on the ENnies staff, or because of any conditional agreements with the ENnies themselves?

Is this typical for the members of the ENnies staff?

And, if this is typical for the ENnies staff, why was the percentage ever proposed and why is it even an issue (to the staff and to Zach)?


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 26, 2008)

Meghan said:


> They have a set rubric for judging that includes things like "How well does the entry represent it's category?", "Production Values", "quality of content" etc.  The ENnies would vastly benefit from some sort of structure to the judging.
> 
> ENnies aren't that cut and dry, but they could take a page from other award systems.




This, I can agree with as someone who will never go to these events or do much more than go, "Huh. How much is _____, again?"

Informality and controversy are fellow travelers. At least with a flexible statement of standards, people have ground rules for the debate.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 26, 2008)

Morrus said:


> None of the above. It was suggested and discussed a bit, then Denise went away on holiday. That's it.
> 
> And the suggestion (I don't recall who made it - one of the judges, I think) was for a dollar ($1) to cover judges' download costs in case of insane quantities of megabytes of products being downloaded, as I recall.
> 
> ...




Well hell.  That really leaves me not understanding what the big deal is with any of this.  I wish Zach would weigh in here himself and elaborate.


----------



## Runestar (Sep 26, 2008)

I don't think the issue was ever about judges getting paid (or not).

Moreso, it was about the very nature and structure of the events, that seem to make judging the products fairly virtually impossible. 

Perhaps they did indeed set out to accomplish a certain goal, and that their intentions were noble (I am willing to concede this much and give them the benefit of a doubt) but the way things were implemented, what really ended up being achieved seemed to be a rather far cry from whatever it was they had hoped to achieve in the first place! 

It has been said that justice must not only been fair, but also perceived as fair. Same analogy applies here, IMO. Maybe the judges feel their judging methods are fair, but as an outsider, I am not sharing their sentiments...


----------



## Morrus (Sep 26, 2008)

Meghan said:


> Not quite.  I have a problem with them declaring their favorites THEN the submissions come in and low and behold, the favorites are on that list.  I would expect that a judge gets a pile of submissions and _then_  delve into them with an open mind.




What makes you think they don't?



> A judge should be impartial and let the products on the table sway their decision.  If the nominations are just going to go to their favorites anyway,




Is it not possible that the five judges collectively (they ALL vote, you know) might have agreed that the products in question were good products?



> I have a problem with them getting their personal favorites on the nomination list.  That's slightly dirty any way you look at it.




Or _maybe_ there's an underlying reason why that judge had a positive opinion of a product.  because, just maybe, they were good products, and the judges agreed that this was so.

By your logic, any product a judge has seen before and deemed of quality is automatically ineligle for nomination.  Crap, we'd have publishers trying to _hide_ their best work from potential judges, just in case they saw it and formed an opinion!



> But the issue- once again- is that the blame keeps getting put on podcasts.




Nobody is blaming podcasts for anything.



> Ok- but then why have 4 of the 6 (including the honorable mention) be websites?  Why make it sound like the "blame" lay with podcasts?




Again maybe, just maybe, the judges thought those websites were _good?_  You seem very resistant to the idea that they could have a different opinion to you; and, as an entrant, it's somewhat _unseemly_ to be basing a complaint on what - basically - amounts to "the judges didn't nominate what I think they should have".

It's OK for a general voter to express that - expected, even; an _entrant_ trying to find reasons why the products he/she would have preferred be nominated weren't is somewhat questionable.


----------



## Xath (Sep 26, 2008)

The_Universe said:


> I am a judge. Due to the conditions of my employment, I couldn't accept a single cent of money from the ENnies even if I wanted to (I don't).




This holds true for me as well.  



> If, indeed, any fee is ever enacted for any category, I won't see a dime. That money will instead support the ever-growing administrative costs of the awards, which are currently paid for by fundraising activities (dream date auctions, etc.), corporate sponsors (Avatar Art, Your Games Now, etc.), and the out-of-pocket donations of the award organizers.




I can't stress how true this is.


----------



## Runestar (Sep 26, 2008)

Morrus said:


> What Morrus said....




Possible? Most certainly.

Probable? 

Like has been said, the reason there are people doubting or even openly questioning the authenticity of the awards shows that in the very least, the decision making process does not come across to be as transparent and above-board as it ought to have been.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 26, 2008)

Runestar said:


> Possible? Most certainly.
> 
> Probable?




Well, there's not much else I can say to you.  The judges collectively voted for the products they thought were the best.   You can believe me or not, but there's nought else I can say.


----------



## The_Universe (Sep 26, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Just curious, is this due to employment outside of your role on the ENnies staff, or because of any conditional agreements with the ENnies themselves?
> 
> Is this typical for the members of the ENnies staff?
> 
> And, if this is typical for the ENnies staff, why was the percentage ever proposed and why is it even an issue (to the staff and to Zach)?



It has everything to do with my "real" job, and nothing to do with the ENnies. As Xath's post indicates, it's a simple fact for at least 2/5 of us. That said, even if that issue did not exist, I don't need the dollar. The ENnies do. Easy decision.

If I recall correctly, the judge payment idea was proposed by someone who was trying to do something nice for the judges, but I don't believe it arose from within the panel itself.


----------



## Meghan (Sep 26, 2008)

The judges didn't just vote on their choices though.  They argued, debated and convinced each other.  If it was a blind vote that would be another thing entirely.  But arguing and debating, there is a much higher chance that a product which isn't very good will get through, whereas if you had a panel of 12 or so qualified individuals who voted, if one was voting for their personal favorite regardless of how much it sucked, that vote wouldn't count.  

Let's look at the Olympics.  Or the Academy Awards.  Or even a smaller award system like the Parsecs.

I also take strong offense to the notion that "they didn't choose what you like so you're upset."  Not the case at all.

What I like and what is quality are not the same thing.  I readily admit to liking stuff that isn't very good quality (I'm a sucker for the Twilight books, that should tell you something).  And in the same regard, there are things I can appreciate for extremely high quality which I don't particularly like.  

Aces and Eights was a fantastic book.  Looking at it objectively, it had all the right pieces.  It was unique, interesting, had a very interesting mechanic, and included great information.  That being said, I will never play that game.  I personally don't enjoy that style nor genre of RPG.  But just because I don't like it shouldn't mean I can't appreciate its value to gaming.

The inverse is also true.  Just because I like a game (again- full disclosure.  I liked Rifts) doesn't mean I can't look at it objectively and compare it in a pool against a set rubric.  

We do reviews now on our podcast- and reviewed all of the books in 4 of the categories of the ENnies.  These reviews were not based on opinion- we set the criteria for review before we opened them.  Some of the games we were familiar with and liked the game- but when we reviewed, we looked at it in a new light.

There were entries in the ENnies that simply did not belong.  They didn't represent the category they were in and had nothing to offer that category.  That's not saying I didn't like these books- that's saying that when you look at the RPG market they flat out just don't belong.  

The judges favortism got in the way of them making an informed decision about a product which is to represent the industry.

That being said, if these awards are not for products to represent the industry, then by all means, continue in the manner upheld so far.  I believe though that they can be more than a popularity contest.  I would love to see quality products for each nomination (again- distinction between quality and what I personally like).  

I think a few fairly simple adoptions of regulations will solve many of these problems and give more credibility to the award system.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 26, 2008)

Meghan said:


> A judge should be impartial and let the products on the table sway their decision.  If the nominations are just going to go to their favorites anyway, then 1) why have a submission process at all? and 2) they need to call themselves something other than judges.  And if that is the case, then the process for electing judges should be changed.




Everyone has their favorites.  Take a look at what games I currently play and you will find my favorites (Changeling the Dreaming, Buffy, and D&D).  Okay, not a great example as all of the games I'm currently involved in are arguable out of print.  

It's all about keeping an open mind though.  Each year I've been a judge there are items I know ahead of time I like.  Maybe I've bought them already and gotten to use them or really like what the publisher and either have done in the past.  But also each year I see a game I did not have and perhaps had not even heard of and been blown away.  There is so much gaming things out there no one can be expected to be familiar with it all.  That is why we ask for submissions.  



> But the issue- once again- is that the blame keeps getting put on podcasts.




I am not placing blame.  I would never blame anyone for not participating with the ENnies and I apologize if it looked like that was what I was saying.  If there is any blame it falls on us for not seeing that we didn't have enough in some categories and contacting people asking them to submit.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 26, 2008)

Meghan said:


> I also take strong offense to the notion that "they didn't choose what you like so you're upset."  Not the case at all.
> 
> What I like and what is quality are not the same thing.




I have no idea where you pulled that quote from or why we're talking about what you "like", or why you're defining the difference between "what you like" and "quality".  That's nothing to do with this conversation, interesting as it may be as a conversation in its own right.

We're talking about a difference of opinion: your opinion differs to the judges as to what should have been nominated.  Fine.  I'm sure thousands of peoples' does in thousands of different ways.  But the fact that you disagree with the nominations doe snot by definition make them wrong, and any suggestion of such carries a strong implication of hubris.

Or worse, given that you say you were an entrant; that makes it sound like something else.  



> We do reviews now on our podcast- and reviewed all of the books in 4 of the categories of the ENnies.  These reviews were not based on opinion- we set the criteria for review before we opened them.  Some of the games we were familiar with and liked the game- but when we reviewed, we looked at it in a new light.




And that's very nice for you.  But you're not the judges.  The judges don't base their decisions on your reviews.  They base them on the criteria, policies and other factors they describe in their election campaigns.  They are elected based on these platforms.  That is a fundamental part of the Ennies process: they are voted for as _representatives_.

If a judge-nominee platform is "I hate all PDFs and will always vote against them", extreme and unlikely though that may be (I picked a silly example, but you get the idea), and are subsequently elected _based on that platform_, the democratic process has been served.



> The judges favortism got in the way of them making an informed decision about a product which is to represent the industry.




Please stop saying that.  You have no idea what went through the judges' minds, other than that they apparently disagree with _you_.  Ascribing motives to people in this way is simply dishonest and inappropriate.

--* I note that on another board, you're ascribing things to _me_ that I haven't said, either.  To be clear, despite your claim otherwise, I am not "slamming you for suggesting that judges be objective", I am advising you that the judges _were_ objective to the extent that a human can be; in that they voted for products they genuinely considered the best in each category, regardless of whether they had seen them before.  Yay for trackbacks.

_Please, please,_ stop misrepesenting people, ascribing false motive to other people, misquoting people, or implying they're saying things they aren't saying.  It's dishonest and disingenuous.

I also reiterate - if you were an entrant, then it is simply _unseemly_ for you to be having this conversation.



> That being said, if these awards are not for products to represent the industry, then by all means, continue in the manner upheld so far.




To "represent the industry"?  I'm not sure what that means or where you got it from. The awards' mission statement is on the official website.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 26, 2008)

Meghan said:


> The judges didn't just vote on their choices though.  They argued, debated and convinced each other.  If it was a blind vote that would be another thing entirely.  But arguing and debating, there is a much higher chance that a product which isn't very good will get through,




The debating and arguing is better because we then talk about the strengths and weakness of a product.  If I'm voting for Rifts (I like the game, too) but my reasoning is flawed or just not there the others will know it.  Plus they can ask specific questions about what I liked verse what they did not.




> We do reviews now on our podcast- and reviewed all of the books in 4 of the categories of the ENnies.  These reviews were not based on opinion- we set the criteria for review before we opened them.  Some of the games we were familiar with and liked the game- but when we reviewed, we looked at it in a new light.




All reviews are based on opinion.  Sure, you can back it up with examples of what was good but people can easily disagree with those examples.  

If you want to fork this thread and pick a category you think the nominations were sub par I'd be happy to discuss that with you.  I was one of five judges last year, so I won't be able to speak for the others but I did go through all the major categories myself on my lj and tried to explain what was good and bad about each nomination.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 26, 2008)

Crothian said:


> The debating and arguing is better because we then talk about the strengths and weakness of a product.  If I'm voting for Rifts (I like the game, too) but my reasoning is flawed or just not there the others will know it.  Plus they can ask specific questions about what I liked verse what they did not.




Speaking as a past judge myself, I found the debating and arguing great because there are often so many products that if I see one coming up again and again in some people's list that I don't have, I go back and reread it for better or worse. It also helps when there are so many products that some of them of similiar nature and stature may get blurred and having people able to pick apart your favorite picks is a great thing.

Doing it to others however, is even better.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 26, 2008)

Morrus said:


> If a judge-nominee platform is "I hate all PDFs and will always vote against them", extreme and unlikely though that may be (I picked a silly example, but you get the idea)




Did you just call diaglo a silly example?

... well, fair enough 

-Hyp.


----------



## Henry (Sep 26, 2008)

Speaking for myself, what this situation WOULD do is make me question EVER entering into any private conversations or business dealings with Zachary Houghton, a person who can't keep private conversions exactly that -- private.

Anyone who has ever been party to closed-door discussions knows that a lot of ideas, both crazy and good, get thrown around in private before the finished idea is revealed. Making closed-door discussions public, for no good reason, leads to malicious rumors, tarnished reputations, and spreading untruths, exactly what I'm seeing here. Next thing you know, people on other forums are going to be slinging rumors that ENnies judges are taking bribes or some other such drivel, because of a mis-worded paragraph or possibly a misunderstanding Zachary had without talking to the rest of the ENnies staff (as Crothian indicated).

Now, what I AM seeing is someone who decided to make their resignation public in the apparent interest of "whistle-blowing", when there's no actual reason to do so. I'm not affiliated with the ENnies; I've never been a judge, never been support staff, I've run for judge one year and the rest I've marvelled at the great jobs the people selected continue to do. Quite frankly, with the harrassment people give them over perceived slights, over the awards they felt they "deserved" but didn't win, or armchair generals who think they can "make the thing so much better" despite having NO practical experience in such a project, even if they were paid, YOU COULDN'T PAY ME TO TAKE THAT MUCH HARRASSMENT for the good job that they do.

 Carry on, ladies and gents -- I'm proud of you being professionals in the face of that much aggravation.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 26, 2008)

Well, all the staff members that weighed in seemed to address every point of Zachs explanation in a very logical and believable way. After hearing their side of things I really do believe them. I just don't understand Zachs letter in light of this. He seems very genuinely troubled by the things he feels are going on. It sounds like there is quite a bit of disagreement between some ENnies staff members, and between the ENnies staff and publishers/internet product providers. It sounds like you guys have some internal things to deal with, and a bit of a PR problem also. But, I definitely appreciated all of the staff members who weighed in to clear things up, despite the fact this seems to be a very emotional and troubling issue for you guys. Whether some people are happy with the things you guys said or not, I feel your "transparency" has definitely increased.

Good Luck guys.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 26, 2008)

Okay, Meghan, I've read your posts here and on your thread on brilliantgameologists.  I've read several long posts from you and waded through your board and I still don't see the big deal.

So. Your evidence thus far:

* Judges on the take? Nope. Not only that, but emphatically nope.

* Fees "unprecedented"! So... how much are the fees? Why don't you say? First off, talk to me when you have to buy thousands of dollars worth of school supplies for your high school classroom or travel to academic conferences without compensation or be left off next year's adjunct teaching list. Second, there's no fee, so that's strike two for you. 

Together, these mistakes shot your credibility. Thus, these objections arose:

* You write: "the one who won, Changeling the Lost, had some of the  writing I've ever seen in a book." Okay. Why? Can you give me some examples? Can you compare and contrast with other selections? Do you have any evidence other than that you say so? Let's see what your link says: "Changeling: The Lost: Idiot, Full of , and .  Rating: 0" I see. So, still no examples. 

* A judge on his blog stated that he liked a podcast. And it got nominated. A judge really liked one of the few works on Epic level play. And it got nominated. But what you don't prove is that one causes the other. See this common  logical fallacy for what I suspect is going on here, because you undermined your credibility.

* You write: "Animalcast has a lot wrong with it and just isn't nearly the quality of many other podcasts- audio or content.  A true critical, objective analysis would not have placed it in the top of all submissions." Again, can you give examples? Will you provide evidence to back up your assertions? Is that really too much to ask? 

* You write: "And then another book which we were just confounded by as a nomination- Epic Role Playing- wasn't in the same class as the other nominees.  It seemed like a good start, but very amateurish." How so? Examples? Any piece of evidence beyond your unsupported opinion?


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 26, 2008)

Which leaves you with Monte's work being let in despite being released 6 days late. 

Which I, as a consumer of the game but nothing more than that, could care less about.


----------



## Meghan (Sep 26, 2008)

roguerouge said:


> Okay, Meghan, I've read your posts here and on your thread on brilliantgameologists.  I've read several long posts from you and waded through your board and I still don't see the big deal.
> 
> So. Your evidence thus far:
> 
> ...




Ummm... ok.  I never said either of these things actually.  I said the point about money was moot because when I entered the conversation it had already been resolved.  So- uh- good to know my credibility was damaged over something I didn't say.  EDIT-- OH!  I see where you got that now-- uh, you do realize that that was a quote from Zachary, right?  I didn't actually write that-- hence the "From Zachary the First" with a link to where he posted that?



roguerouge said:


> * You write: "the one who won, Changeling the Lost, had some of the  writing I've ever seen in a book." Okay. Why? Can you give me some examples? Can you compare and contrast with other selections? Do you have any evidence other than that you say so? Let's see what your link says: "Changeling: The Lost: Idiot, Full of , and .  Rating: 0" I see. So, still no examples.




Uh- ok. Yeah, that's not a blog.  That's a podcast.  You have to listen to it to get the content.  What you are reading are show notes.

And yes, there are specific examples in that episode to substantiate that claim.  There are specific entries that I writing samples I cite from each book in the Best Writing category that show example of "good" versus "poor" prose.  As in what an English teacher would accept.  Each entry was compared and contrasted.  



roguerouge said:


> * A judge on his blog stated that he liked a podcast. And it got nominated. A judge really liked one of the few works on Epic level play. And it got nominated. But what you don't prove is that one causes the other. See this common  logical fallacy for what I suspect is going on here, because you undermined your credibility.




A judge stated- before submissions- that he liked a specific podcast.  And then on the back of one of the books (Epic RPG- not "Epic level play") is a quote by him saying how much he loved this game.  And they both ended up nominated.  

And I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on Zachary- he was just the most transparent of the judges.  Yes, I saw what some others had, but he was the most visible face so the easiest to get direct quotes from.  

If a board of a nonprofit was choosing a new landscaper and one of the board members was cousins with one of the landscapers, he would have to excuse himself from the vote.  If someone was judging a play competition and had written a testimonial on how much they loved one of the competitors beforehand, they would excuse themselves from the judging process.  

To argue against any claim of objectivity further demeans the process.  




roguerouge said:


> * You write: "Animalcast has a lot wrong with it and just isn't nearly the quality of many other podcasts- audio or content.  A true critical, objective analysis would not have placed it in the top of all submissions." Again, can you give examples? Will you provide evidence to back up your assertions? Is that really too much to ask?



No- we did not review the "Fan Media' category or whatever it was called.  This is the only case where there is not evidence to back up my assertions other than the product itself.  I did not do a true critical objective analysis of the podcast- but I'm working on it for this one as well as others, so stay tuned.



roguerouge said:


> * You write: "And then another book which we were just confounded by as a nomination- Epic Role Playing- wasn't in the same class as the other nominees.  It seemed like a good start, but very amateurish." How so? Examples? Any piece of evidence beyond your unsupported opinion?



 Again- I had linked along with this statement the episode which did review the product.  There was no unsupported opinion made in our singular ENnies review episode.

But that's just 1 episode of 1 podcast in 1 genre.  My point in pointing out our process of review is that if we- a "fan" endeavor can work to be objective, why can't an award system?  

No one is perfect.  Nothing is perfect.  There are varying degrees of "wrong" everywhere.  It's the publishers who keep up to date and change based on the market who succeed.  It's the podcasts who listen to feedback and take the parts that apply and let the rest go who improve.  An ineligible product made it through without notice (yes, I've read the official statement, but its still a pretty hefty mistake).  A respected judge resigned claiming "I am disillusioned with the purposeful lack of transparency in the awards" (yes, I read that official response as well).  Many podcasts boycotted this year because of the drama caused by last year's podcast entry and forced resignation of an entrant.  

This is feedback.  The process should change.  It needs to change.  It can enact changes within the mission of the award that do not disrupt the system too much but will lead to much greater success and reduce these feelings of ill-will towards the award.  I *still* believe that the ENnies are a good thing.  My main thought of them is getting to go to the ENnies with Monte and Sue Cook as a gift from Diaglo's winning the date with them.  It was a blast and a great time and I provide the feedback in the interest of something I like reducing the controversy and drama.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 26, 2008)

ENnies Staff Member and not a Judge - oh how glad I am...

Another side of the coin here so that some perspective may be shown on the work involved.  I produce the audio for the awards, this has grown from being placed in front of a CD player with a handful of CDs to this year me going into my studio, editing cuts and splicing an entrance and intermission soundtrack.  How much did I get paid for this month and a half of work?  Nothing - know how much it costs me to do that?  At $50 an hour of studio time...  Thankfully I have some ins (and a home studio to edit with) so I get a VERY good rate, but can you imagine if I couldn't?

Why do I do it you ask?  Prestige - hardly, I barely show on the staff radar.  Compensation - obviously not, I don't get paid and don't even get the free product of the judges.  Countless groupies and fans - BWAHAHAHAHA!  I do it for love of the hobby, just like the podcasters, and webheads - it's why we all do it.  Trust me, if you had been in on the meetings a week or two before GenCon you would realize that a lot of stuff goes on behind the screen that has to happen in order to make it work.  So why don't we tell you what goes on behind the screen, because it doesn't matter, it's logistics.  Unless it ACTUALLY affects the awards, it doesn't go public (or at least it SHOULDN'T).  

Once the nominations happen it's up to the voters - the judges and staff have no say after this (other then the judge's award but that's a separate category).  I personally didn't agree with MOST of the winners (won't post my opinion here), but that's what you the voting public decided.   What upsets me is that Zach emotionally puked on the public before he aired his problems with the other judges - that is just unprofessional.  

As for the amount of podcasters that entered - yes there were a bunch, most of them didn't follow procedure and were tossed out, leaving less than 10.  Were some mistakes made (specifically the Malhavoc issue)- yes, of course, this is done in the spare time of the folks involved.  Everyone tries to do their absolute best to ensure perfection, but things get through.  If we had a paid staff to go over all of this with a fine toothed comb it would be different, but we are all volunteers.  We do what we can and soldier on.  If you want to pay me to do this full time - hey, I'm all for it.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 26, 2008)

"Exhibit #1) From Zachary the First:"

When you quote something someone else says and label it like that, you make it your argument too. You become responsible for its accuracy. That goes double when you endorse its views with the heading, "The ENnies are crap." So, yes, it does undermine your credibility. 

And, frankly, I'm not going to listen through a 78 minute episode to find the part where you provide the evidence that you should be citing in one of your lengthy posts on the subject in two forums. If you want to persuade audiences of the rightness of your opinions, you need to make it a bit easier for them to get at the meat of your argument than that. What. Is. The. Evidence. You. Cite. There?


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 26, 2008)

Meghan said:


> A judge stated- before submissions- that he liked a specific podcast.  And then on the back of one of the books (Epic RPG- not "Epic level play") is a quote by him saying how much he loved this game.  And they both ended up nominated.
> 
> And I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on Zachary- he was just the most transparent of the judges.  Yes, I saw what some others had, but he was the most visible face so the easiest to get direct quotes from.
> 
> ...




First, it's not objectivity that's required; it's being able to judge fairly. The reason we strive to prevent nepotism is because we realize that people cannot, by and large, decide justly because "blood is thicker than water." That analogy does not fit. If objectivity were what was desired, they'd bring in people with no knowledge of gaming whatsoever. What the process needs is fair expertise, which connotes a knowledge base informed by judgments on the worth of past material. 

Second, the judges are elected and run on specific platforms. My understanding, having never voted in these elections, is that all candidates say that they like certain kinds of products and specific products. It's actually a job requirement. The Animalcast statement is a nonissue. 

Third, the printed testimonial is the more serious charge. But there's no financial considerations flowing to the judge from the product. And the fact that the judges do not make the final decision--the voters do--makes its impact much less. They propose, the voters dispose, as the saying goes. Moreover, the single judge has no ability to unilaterally push that one product before the voters, which further undermines its impact on the process. If there were a smoking gun here or evidence of the product's unworthiness, that would be one thing. But neither have been shown. 

So, thus far, your statement that "The ENnies are crap" is unproven.


----------



## Meghan (Sep 26, 2008)

The statement "The ENnies are crap" was made on a different board.  The discussion about the products were done elsewhere- in a podcast and talked about on a board for that podcast- and are inappropriate in a discussion titled "Zachary Houghton resigns as an ENnies judge".   If you'd like to debate the products, the information backing up the reviews, or any of that, by all means, come on over!  

I believe Zachary believed what he was writing.  We don't have the inner workings of the process or judges.  If someone is claiming that things aren't nearly transparent enough and others come in and say "everything's fine.  It's all fine here.  How are you?" I'm not going to take that at face value either.  

My opinions are just one small voice.  A judge though resigning because he became disillusioned with the system screams to me the system needs improvement.  Bend over and do what Zachary says?  Hell no.  But in the time this argument has persisted, actual changes for improvement could've happened.  Even in a volunteer endeavor (I know that too well) if there is feedback staring you in the face after a few serious errors and you ignore it, then you have to anticipate the same mistakes and the same issues to come up time after time.


----------



## justanobody (Sep 26, 2008)

Qualidar: Yes.



billd91 said:


> The free products the judges get are the entries that the publishers submit. Review copies, in other words, provided so that no judge's ability to participate in the selection has to depend on his or her disposable income.
> 
> Now, I can understand that it's easy enough to check out a link online, but the quality of the site or podcast viewing/listening experience could be affected by the quality and speed of the judge's internet connection. So I don't exactly think that asking the submission to be on a cd is off base. The podcasters really should want the judges to be able to review at their own best convenience and in the best conditions they can manage.
> 
> ...




True judge connections are a bit of a problem in a sense, but it also can help show the quality of an online product. If it is so large to not accommodate the worst of connections them it may mean an online offering needs some work for whatever reason. Take ENWorld for example. Didn't we recently have a lite version being run to compensate for hardware failure?

While it wasn't the intended design of the site, it was something to make sure people had access to the site so while a judge for physical products has everything in hand and needs nothing else, I was just thinking those added disadvantages that online media has that would or maybe should be a part of the review process. While a CD of the material can show the final product, unlike getting a book at a local store, the online media has a different dilevery method that must meet other standards than a physical product so that it can get to people who are interested in it.

It would be a sad case for someone with a podcast and only 2 gigs bandwidth per month to have people flock to it and the judge not be able to see it, but would show something about the podcast. It is a sad thing to say, but that podcast may need some work for it to be accessible to people other than a judge who could get it on a CD.

The awards should be based in part on performance correct?

A book or such that would be presented in newspaper cut-out leters will probably not go over well as a whole product because of how hard it is to read, and likewise a podcast that does not have enough bandwidth to support it probably isn't taking the proper steps to deliver the digital fan product....

I also understand that judges need something to look at in the form of a physical product, but didn't figure they got to keep them, and maybe all those products were auctioned off to support the awards or something else. Like a baking contest the judge has to sample the cake/pie, but doesn't get one to themselves, but there is one for each judge to sample, or Golden Demon each judge does not get a mini or diorama, but must share viewing of the entry.

I just think the delivery method of digital media is an important part of the quality of it.

Looking at Dungeons and Dragons Insider you can se a lot about the quality of the service that people are talking about comes in the form of how it is delivered to them including the latest feedback requesting article.

Judges have to have something to judge after all.

For the fee to enter one type of entry and others not have an out of pocket fee seems kind of funny, but again it is the different forms of media. Assume someone were to ask a podcaster to mail in their web server that houses the podcasts to compare to a book from say Green Ronin.

You really can't equate physical media to digital media in every way because of the differences in how they are presented to the world.

Podcasts aren't that much or PDFs to send in a copy on CD if needed, but what of streaming media that does not allow for download because they don't want their "cast" replicated?

So I am just saying that another option exists for digital media that does not for physical product.

Of course and digital book in eBook/PDF format could be printed and mailed in, and likewise any physical book could be digitized and placed on a CD so there is overlap for some, but not all in comparison.

Also digital media outside of the local area (country/state/etc) would be easier to get in than physical products.

Say someone in a country couldn't mail to the judges for the Ennies? Or what they mail takes so long through customs or has duties owed on the customs? Does the Ennies turn those entrants away because they don't want to pay the charges to get the mail?  Where a submitted link costs nothing between countries to get it to anyone.


----------



## Arnwyn (Sep 26, 2008)

Aside:


roguerouge said:


> And, frankly, I'm not going to listen through a 78 minute episode to find the part where you provide the evidence that you should be citing in one of your lengthy posts on the subject in two forums. If you want to persuade audiences of the rightness of your opinions, you need to make it a bit easier for them to get at the meat of your argument than that. What. Is. The. Evidence. You. Cite. There?



Oh, give me a break. I was with you all the way, until here. A podcast is a podcast. Listen, and you'll likely get your answers. If you don't want to listen, that's _your_ problem. Expecting anything more is not only unreasonable, it's flat-out silly.

Love this thread - it's always fun reading about a good "scandal" - real or imagined!


----------



## FickleGM (Sep 26, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> Aside:
> 
> Oh, give me a break. I was with you all the way, until here. A podcast is a podcast. Listen, and you'll likely get your answers. If you don't want to listen, that's _your_ problem. Expecting anything more is not only unreasonable, it's flat-out silly.
> 
> Love this thread - it's always fun reading about a good "scandal" - real or imagined!



Who's trying to defend their views and who is asking for a defense of said views?  The first is whose problem it is, not the second.  This is the court of public opinion, where the burden falls to the person on the defensive, not the person on the offensive.

I'm just saying, if roguerogue doesn't listen to the podcast, he isn't out anything...


----------



## Staffan (Sep 26, 2008)

Meghan said:


> If a board of a nonprofit was choosing a new landscaper and one of the board members was cousins with one of the landscapers, he would have to excuse himself from the vote.



That's a poor analogy. A better analogy would be:

A nonprofit is going to choose a new landscaper. A number of landscapers have submitted bids. One of the board members says, "This guy here did the landscaping on my yard, he does good work."


----------



## Qualidar (Sep 26, 2008)

Runestar said:


> Perhaps they did indeed set out to accomplish a certain goal, and that their intentions were noble (I am willing to concede this much and give them the benefit of a doubt) but the way things were implemented, what really ended up being achieved seemed to be a rather far cry from whatever it was they had hoped to achieve in the first place!
> 
> It has been said that justice must not only been fair, but also perceived as fair. Same analogy applies here, IMO. Maybe the judges feel their judging methods are fair, but as an outsider, I am not sharing their sentiments...



I disagree with your assertion. I don't believe that things have turned out unfair, nor do I believe that the general perception is that they did. A few vocal detractors do not indicate that people, _in general_, think the process is either flawed or unfair. That some of those detractors have a larger voice due to them owning podcasts or competing websites may give their voice more traction, but I do not think it gives their argument more weight.



Meghan, I'll have to go point by point with your posts. Please forgive me: I'm trying to be clear, not obnoxious. 


Meghan said:


> Not quite.  I have a problem with them declaring their favorites THEN the submissions come in and low and behold, the favorites are on that list.  I would expect that a judge gets a pile of submissions and _then_  delve into them with an open mind.  I would expect that they not have their mind made up before they actually get the submissions.  I would expect that a quality award system not ask their favorites to submit.



I find this to be insulting: who are you to say that they did not delve into them with an open mind, or to say that their mind had been made up before they had seen the submissions? It's perfectly possible (and believable, and likely) that a product that was good enough to distinguish itself among the sea of products out there fared well when judged against other products.



Meghan said:


> A judge should be impartial and let the products on the table sway their decision.  If the nominations are just going to go to their favorites anyway, then 1) why have a submission process at all? and 2) they need to call themselves something other than judges.  And if that is the case, then the process for electing judges should be changed.
> 
> Expecting an arbiter to hear all sides of the story before making a decision is perfectly rational in my eyes.



It certainly is rational. It's also presumably what happened, unless you have some secret information that indicates otherwise?




Meghan said:


> I have a problem with them getting their personal favorites on the nomination list.  That's slightly dirty any way you look at it.



It's not dirty if they actually judged those products to be the best entrants in those categories, is it?




Meghan said:


> But the larger problem is the nomination in general.  There's no criteria for judging.  There needs to be a rubric of some sorts to ensure judges are looking at the same criteria.




It's representational democracy: the judges were voted in by the people to judge based on their personal criteria. If their criteria is "what I liked out of the crop", that's no more or less valid than your rubric. Them being able to put aside the fact that a book might not be as grammatically correct as it could be in deference to the fact that it creates an entertaining play experience isn't a flaw. It's "judging", not "measuring".





Meghan said:


> When a product is freely available though- seriously?  "Pay up"?  That doesn't even make sense.  My product is available for free.  I pay to have it available for free.  I don't even break even on this venture much less expect to make a profit like a publisher.  I expect to follow the same rules as anyone else in the system- give the judges what I give the fans.




I do not disagree with you here. I think it would be fair for all entrants to pay an entrance fee. I know in my field (graphic design) contests have an entrance fee of around $50 - $70 per entry (plus the additional requirement of including samples). I'm not suggesting those figures, but it would be fair to require all entrants to have the same fee. 





Meghan said:


> Ok- but then why have 4 of the 6 (including the honorable mention) be websites?



Does it not seem obvious to you that the judges looked at the pool of contestants, and judged the podcasts inferior to the websites? What else would be the answer?





Meghan said:


> The judges didn't just vote on their choices though.  They argued, debated and convinced each other.  If it was a blind vote that would be another thing entirely.  But arguing and debating, there is a much higher chance that a product which isn't very good will get through, whereas if you had a panel of 12 or so qualified individuals who voted, if one was voting for their personal favorite regardless of how much it sucked, that vote wouldn't count.



This seems like the opposite of a logical point to me: debate that convinces the other judges of a product's good points and convinces them to vote for it is neither unwanted nor unethical. If a convincing argument can be formed for the inclusion of a product, does it not logically follow that the product is worthy of inclusion?





Meghan said:


> What I like and what is quality are not the same thing.  I readily admit to liking stuff that isn't very good quality (I'm a sucker for the Twilight books, that should tell you something).  And in the same regard, there are things I can appreciate for extremely high quality which I don't particularly like.
> 
> There were entries in the ENnies that simply did not belong.  They didn't represent the category they were in and had nothing to offer that category.  That's not saying I didn't like these books- that's saying that when you look at the RPG market they flat out just don't belong.
> 
> The judges favortism got in the way of them making an informed decision about a product which is to represent the industry.




And what, other than your opinion, is the basis for declaring these products "unworthy"? And what, other than differing from your opinion, do you offer as evidence that the judges "let favortism get in the way of them making an informed decision"? Without offering up evidence to back up your assertions it comes off like sour grapes to me.





justanobody said:


> Say someone in a country couldn't mail to the judges for the Ennies? Or what they mail takes so long through customs or has duties owed on the customs? Does the Ennies turn those entrants away because they don't want to pay the charges to get the mail?  Where a submitted link costs nothing between countries to get it to anyone.



I would imagine that is the case. If the rules specify those entry requirements, than you are expected to meet those requirements to be considered. I noticed above that it was mentioned that one of the reasons there were not enough podcasts submitted to make them a separate category was taht severeal were discarded for not being properly submitted.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 26, 2008)

Meghan said:


> I have a problem with them declaring their favorites THEN the submissions come in and low and behold, the favorites are on that list.  I would expect that a judge gets a pile of submissions and _then_  delve into them with an open mind.  I would expect that they not have their mind made up before they actually get the submissions.  I would expect that a quality award system not ask their favorites to submit.




The judges are all gamers.  They will have looked over, bought, and used some of the products in the year before judging begins.  It is not reasonable to expect that they have no opinions whatsoever about any products before they begin.  

It is also not reasonable to suggest that having a favorable opinion about one product constitutes "having one's mind made up".   Just because I like one book today, doesn't mean I can't see quality in other products.  I like the shoes I am currently wearing.  That doesn't mean I can't see another pair of shoes as being even better.


----------



## Master of the Game (Sep 26, 2008)

Umbran said:


> The judges are all gamers.  They will have looked over, bought, and used some of the products in the year before judging begins.  It is not reasonable to expect that they have no opinions whatsoever about any products before they begin.
> 
> It is also not reasonable to suggest that having a favorable opinion about one product constitutes "having one's mind made up".   Just because I like one book today, doesn't mean I can't see quality in other products.  I like the shoes I am currently wearing.  That doesn't mean I can't see another pair of shoes as being even better.




I agree.  By the time elections are held we're already 3 months into the judging year.  I know that I, during my term, already owned several of the books that were turned into me, and was really glad to see them submitted because I liked them so much, but I'd be curious to go back over them and see how many made the cut.  I'd guess not many.  That was the year I fell in love with games I had never heard of before.

ENnies judging opens you up to a lot of new things.  I don't care who you are or how much you collect you will find and love something you had never even thought about during the process.  It's the nature of the beast.  If you're the kind of person who should be judging, the kind that keeps an open mind about games in general, then knowing something existed before it is submitted isn't much of a barrier.

And if you aren't, having a pet book is the least of the worries.

I can speak without hesitation in the defense of the people I have worked with.  They were definitely the kind of people I'd trust for advice on a game system.  Even when we disagree, I trust in their reasons for making the choices they did.

Now, I don't know how much weight that holds with others, but there it is for what it's worth.  I like Zach, and I think that a person has to stand up for what they believe in.  If that's what he needs to do then I trust that in his heart and mind it is the right thing to do, but I honestly have no idea what is going on, and I refuse to speak badly about people who I think are honestly working hard to do something good for the hobby they love.

That won't mean a lot to some people.  I have that little ENnies Staff button by my name, but I came by it honestly.  I was voted in by the gaming community as a judge.  It's the only major roll I've ever had with the ENnies.  I wasn't some EN World insider or friend or family or what have you.  Like Zach I was voted in by people from other places who wanted their voices heard, and I got my shot, did the best I could with it, and I'm proud of what we did.

So yeah, I'm probably biased.  I'll even admit that I ran again this year and I'm the first runner up, so it may well be me who takes Zach's place, but if so it would be with a heavy heart.  I like Zach, and we've spoken several times about wanting to be judges together, so I'd hate to do it without him, but please remember that judges are people.  If you don't like them, vote differently next year.  No one would blame you.

As for the money thing, I couldn't imagine anyone really wanting a cut, though I could see why it might be brought up.  I know during my year one of the judges got hit hard with import duties.  There _are_ expenses that go with doing this work.

Anywho, that's my two cents.  I'll admit that I heard about this first today and I've read all of two threads on this matter so I likely have no idea what I'm talking about, but I've worked with these people before, and I trust their motivations.  Including Zach's.  I just don't know that motivations always translate well into actions.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 26, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> Aside:
> 
> Oh, give me a break. I was with you all the way, until here. A podcast is a podcast. Listen, and you'll likely get your answers. If you don't want to listen, that's _your_ problem. Expecting anything more is not only unreasonable, it's flat-out silly.
> 
> Love this thread - it's always fun reading about a good "scandal" - real or imagined!




Dude, I'm an ordinary gamer. I've already gone above and beyond for this person by reading her lengthy posts here and at another site and read her own summary of the podcast. And then she tells me that her REAL evidence is somewhere in her 78 minute podcast? I'm not doing a research paper here; the ENnies aren't even an insignificant part of my life. 

If she wants to advocate effectively for her views to persuade an audience, perhaps she should type out what she said on her podcast on these products rather than using cusswords to describe them two links away.

It's common courtesy to put your evidence in an accessible format for your audience. 

When I'm talking with my students, I put things in as accessible a format as I can. I can't even trust that they'll go to the library. I'd certainly never expect them to click three links and wade through a podcast to get the gist of my argument.


----------



## Meghan (Sep 26, 2008)

roguerouge said:


> Dude, I'm an ordinary gamer. I've already gone above and beyond for this person by reading her lengthy posts ...
> 
> If she wants to advocate effectively for her views to persuade an audience, perhaps she should type out what she said on her podcast on these products rather than using cusswords to describe them two links away.




Dude, you quoted me from a different site-- a site which is for the podcast you don't want to listen to.  You are taking my comments which refer to that episode.

I'm fine with you not wanting to listen- podcasts aren't for everyone and mine isn't for every podcast listener.  

But you can't take what I say about an episode and bring it here and say I'm not supporting my evidence.  

Once again- if you'd like to argue my points explaining why I feel a few products should not have been nominated, let's take it to the appropriate venue and I will type out my responses.  This thread is not for that, not for me to persuade an audience of those facts and is definitely not about me.  

What this thread is about is the fact that a judge resigned because of his perceptions of the ENnies misdoings.  And that opens the door to discussion of the ENnies misdoings in general.  

The 3 main points still stand that 1) A judge resigned over his perception of the mishandling of the process (I'm summarizing intent there), 2) an ineligible product made it into the consideration while others which didn't follow the process exactly were cast out and 3) A judge's name is on the back of one of the books which to me signifies lack of objectivity.  

Add that into the mix of just 2 points that came up previously (and just ones I know about): 4) A podcast last year was forced to drop out which caused a lot of hurt feelings over reasons dubious as best and 5) This year categories were combined which caused a bit of an uproar as well.  
I'll add in a #6 to say folks here arguing that the contest shouldn't even strive to be objective I feel is an issue as well. 

#5 I put because while I see full well that the rules say combination of categories may happen and don't necessarily feel it was a bad decision, the fact remains it did make some people loose faith in the system- justified or not- and that should be taken as feedback as well.  

I'll reiterate- I still believe the awards are a good thing and can be made to be better.  These items could be avoided in the future by a few simple fixes.  Will it make the awards perfect?  Of course not- other problems will come up, but why not learn from mistakes instead of just excusing them away and ignoring them?  Why not try to appear as if feedback is being taken seriously?  A judge dropped out- there should be more of a response than a press release making him seem like the bad guy.


----------



## Master of the Game (Sep 26, 2008)

Meghan said:


> The 3 main points still stand that 1) A judge resigned over his perception of the mishandling of the process (I'm summarizing intent there), 2) an ineligible product made it into the consideration while others which didn't follow the process exactly were cast out and 3) A judge's name is on the back of one of the books which to me signifies lack of objectivity.
> 
> Add that into the mix of just 2 points that came up previously (and just ones I know about): 4) A podcast last year was forced to drop out which caused a lot of hurt feelings over reasons dubious as best and 5) This year categories were combined which caused a bit of an uproar as well.
> I'll add in a #6 to say folks here arguing that the contest shouldn't even strive to be objective I feel is an issue as well.
> ...




I actually agree with you.  Maybe we should discuss this more (by "we" I'm referring to the general populous).  I think the problem here is really not so much though that the ENnies staff hasn't responded, but that Zach hasn't.  I think they've made an effort, but I'd really like to see what Zach has to say about it.

Coming from a place of ignorance (I probably don't know more than anyone else, and less than anyone who has actually researched it), from what I understand Zach's "resignation" came in the form of a post on his own blog, which was linked here and he reposted on another forum.  I believe that was the first that he communicated it to the staff (although, I'm not privy to those discussions, but that's the feeling I got), not through any formal resignation.  And so far as I can tell he hasn't discussed it or answered to the ENnies responses anywhere.  If I'm wrong please forgive me.  I'd love to see what he has to say.

Without his response it's awfully hard to see where the breakdown is occurring.  I can see why it's hard for the ENnie people.  the spokesperson is away, and I doubt anyone wants to step on toes until she has a chance to comment.  Beyond that, I believe there's only so much they *can* say.  I'm pretty sure on the application to be a judge it mentions requiring an NDA.

Not to say that we can't discuss your points until then, but we should do so with understanding that there's a lot of silence from both sides, and until the only people who can really speak to those issues (DEnise and Zach) do so it's a whole lot of shadow boxing.

Not that shadow boxing can't be productive and help us learn, but we need more meat for a real fight 

As to your actual points, I'll respond with my own opinion as best I can:

1) I think this more than anything is going to require Zach's input.  I'd like to hear how he feels the truth is being represented in light of the ENnies response.  In the mean time, without his input and given the absense of such a fee I'm inclined to believe this was as it has been represented here.  An idea someone brought up that was never adopted.

2) Now this I think is unfortunate, but having been a judge I could see how it would happen.  The ENnies rely on publishers to honor the entry dates.  Someone somewhere made a mistake and no one caught it.  If the mistake was caught after voting was over and the date was off by a few days as an honest mistake, would you really take back their award?  We're not talking about disqualifying someone, we're talking about a big, embarrassing retraction for a 5 day mistake.  At worst the product would have been entered this year instead.  It's not a small issue, and it hopefully will lead to better vetting in the future, but this is a reasonable way to handle the issue and learn from the mistake.

3) Being affiliated with a product before it is published, by the rules, does not disqualify one from being a judge.  I have done some playtesting on the Dresden Files myself, as I stated when running for the job.  That said, I would like to hear from Zach how closely he was tied to the product and exactly how he voted.  Personally I'd withdraw from discussions about the Dresden Files if it comes out, but we don't even know that he didn't.  Or, if he had just seen it in PDF or something and wasn't really tied to it at all.

4) Absolutely, but let's be honest about why FtB was asked to leave.  Their podcast did sound like bad votes were cast.  They weren't asked to do so because they mentioned that it could be done.  I like the guys at FtB, I consider Dan a friend and I think their 'cast is amazing.  I was even the one that recommended a podcast category and personally asked FtB and a dozen other 'casts to join.  I'm no hater, and I still don't think that asking them to bow out was wrong.  There was a lot of bad crap in the fallout, and no one really deserved that, least of all Dan and the guys, but given the way the show came off (and I personally _don't_ think they cheated) there wasn't likely another option.

5) I think it has been taken as feedback, but since it's a year until we see the fallout I'd say it's a little too early to worry that it hasn't.  I really don't know what the answer is.  I believe Morrus is right, less than 10 is pretty ridiculous to try and judge 5 entrants, and that _is_ the reason parent categories exist.  Maybe there is a better way to do it though, but the best option might just be encouraging more people to enter.

I don't disagree with you, but these things take a little time, so let's give it through the weekend before we start worrying that there'll be no official response.  I don't know many people that would drop their vacation to respond to an issue from an unpaid volunteer position, and no one else really can respond in any kind of official manner.  In the mean time let's encourage Zach to give his response, but remember to give him some time to breathe too.  I doubt this has been easy for him either.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 26, 2008)

Meghan said:


> I'll add in a #6 to say folks here arguing that the contest shouldn't even strive to be objective I feel is an issue as well.




The contest _shouldn't_ be objective because it _cannot_ be objective. It's a judgment of quality. While there may be certain qualities that can be objectively measured - page count and price - there are a host of other judgments that cannot be. How useful a product might be for gamers, how compeling the plot line is for a module, how innovative a set of rules are, and ultimately how _good_ a product is are all subjective judgments.

Objective is right out the window. What the contest should be is _*fair*_.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 26, 2008)

Meghan said:


> 3) A judge's name is on the back of one of the books which to me signifies lack of objectivity.




First I'm hearing of this.  Which product?



> 4) A podcast last year was forced to drop out which caused a lot of hurt feelings over reasons dubious as best




Are you referring to Fear of the Boot who asked his listeners to cheat and vote as many times so they could win?  




> 5) This year categories were combined which caused a bit of an uproar as well.




This is not the first year we've done this and I doubt it will be the last.  Since you keep on bringing it up I'm curious as what you think we should do in the situation that we do not get enough items for a given category? That is the only time we combine categories. 



> I'll add in a #6 to say folks here arguing that the contest shouldn't even strive to be objective I feel is an issue as well.




If you can come up with an objective way to regulate people's opinions I'd like to hear it.  I'm not sure what you point here is, it is all subjective.  Not everyone likes the Mona Lisa or the Beatles either.  

If we have a clear set of criteria of what it takes to get nominated then publishers won't send in anything that doesn't meet that predefined list.  RPGs are creative and these days we are seeing things that haven't been done before.  Any RPG that is innovative and truly new would not be able to meet that list and no matter how good the game was they would have lost before the race even started.

We are listening to feedback from you and everyone else that is offering it.  If I weren't listening I wouldn't be responded to all of this.


----------



## The_Universe (Sep 26, 2008)

Crothian said:


> If you can come up with an objective way to regulate people's opinions I'd like to hear it.  I'm not sure what you point here is, it is all subjective.  Not everyone likes the Mona Lisa or the Beatles either.



 That Da Vinci is a hack!


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 26, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Objective is right out the window. What the contest should be is _*fair*_.



Precisely. If it were objective they wouldn't be judges. They'd be measurers.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Sep 26, 2008)

The_Universe said:


> That Da Vinci is a hack!




Are you accusing him of badwrongart?


----------



## Treebore (Sep 26, 2008)

I'd like to know when a human being is ever capable of being completely objective, there is always a degree of subjective in opinions of human beings.

Plus I find it immensely funny that Changling is called crap, but netted plenty of votes from other gamers to say its great. I guess Meghan's opinion is obviously in the minority. Not to mention she, by default, says everyone that voted for Changling has crappy tastes in RPG's.

So who knows what they are talking about? Meghan or all the people who voted for Changling?

Hmmmm...


----------



## Psion (Sep 27, 2008)

So, Meghan is the new Rasyr?


----------



## Runestar (Sep 27, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Precisely. If it were objective they wouldn't be judges. They'd be measurers.




What is the difference between objectiveness and fairness? If you cannot be objective in your judging, this suggests that by definition, you are already biased in your opinions, be it because you feel strongly for a certain product, and will not be swayed from your decision regardless of what other people say, or whatever?

I don't see why objectiveness cannot or should not be an ideal for the judges to strive towards and achieve. Just because they feel it cannot be done, that gives them all the justification they need to throw it out of the window altogether?


----------



## billd91 (Sep 27, 2008)

Runestar said:


> What is the difference between objectiveness and fairness? If you cannot be objective in your judging, this suggests that by definition, you are already biased in your opinions, be it because you feel strongly for a certain product, and will not be swayed from your decision regardless of what other people say, or whatever?
> 
> I don't see why objectiveness cannot or should not be an ideal for the judges to strive towards and achieve. Just because they feel it cannot be done, that gives them all the justification they need to throw it out of the window altogether?




It's not a question about feeling it cannot be done... it simply cannot be done. Being fair is giving everything an even shake, coming at it with an open mind,  applying the same faculties of judgment to it that you apply to everything else. That's being fair. As humans, we can try our best at this and, if  you'll note, even make a mistake about something as objective as a work's release date.

But when it comes to determining quality, which is what the ENnies are supposed to award, the judgments are primarily subjective. There's simply no way around it. This is also why there's a panel of judges instead of a single administrator applying some form of objective standard. A group can evaluate the materials, debate their relative merits over other entrants, in order to produce the set of nominees. But it's not an objective process at all. Some people happen to like certain styles of games, certain styles of art, certain turns of phrase and those preferences will appear in their individual choices. And again, because it's a panel of judges,  the contest has the power to bring a diversity of opinions to the table to determine the final nominees.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 27, 2008)

Runestar said:


> I don't see why objectiveness cannot or should not be an ideal for the judges to strive towards and achieve. Just because they feel it cannot be done, that gives them all the justification they need to throw it out of the window altogether?




It's very possible that the term objective is being read in different ways.  Perhaps you could explain your point without the term.

What I got from Meghan's posts about it (and I could be way off here that's why I'm asking for more information on what people mean) is there would be a predetermined checklist of criteria that determines what is a good book.  

If you are just saying that judges should be unbiased then I don't think there is an argument to made against that.  Of course judges should be as unbiased as possible, but we are human so some bias will be there.  Saying that I really like Behind the Spells: Compendium (which I really do) doesn't by itself mean that I am biased towards it and would be biased against books that competed with it.  It just means I really like the book.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 27, 2008)

Meghan said:


> Dude, you quoted me from a different site-- a site which is for the podcast you don't want to listen to.  You are taking my comments which refer to that episode.
> 
> I'm fine with you not wanting to listen- podcasts aren't for everyone and mine isn't for every podcast listener.
> 
> But you can't take what I say about an episode and bring it here and say I'm not supporting my evidence.




I followed your link from here. 

I guess I'll never know why you feel Changeling the Lost is bad, why Animalcast is amateur, or why Epic Role Playing is in a worse class from the rest. You only tell me that they are. 

Because all you will write is:



roguerouge said:


> * You write: "the one who won, Changeling the Lost, had some of the  writing I've ever seen in a book." Okay. Why? Can you give me some examples? Can you compare and contrast with other selections? Do you have any evidence other than that you say so? Let's see what your link says: "Changeling: The Lost: Idiot, Full of , and .  Rating: 0" I see. So, still no examples.
> 
> * You write: "Animalcast has a lot wrong with it and just isn't nearly the quality of many other podcasts- audio or content.  A true critical, objective analysis would not have placed it in the top of all submissions." Again, can you give examples? Will you provide evidence to back up your assertions? Is that really too much to ask?
> 
> * You write: "And then another book which we were just confounded by as a nomination- Epic Role Playing- wasn't in the same class as the other nominees.  It seemed like a good start, but very amateurish." How so? Examples? Any piece of evidence beyond your unsupported opinion?




So, yes, there's still no evidence, just unsupported opinions for the real impact of your argument: that someone else should have been nominated. And since I've given you several opportunities to make your case on these issues—and you still haven't—I'll quote a VIP ENWorlder: "We're done here."


----------



## Umbran (Sep 27, 2008)

Crothian said:


> If you are just saying that judges should be unbiased then I don't think there is an argument to made against that.




I can make such an argument - judges should be biased towards good products.  

That sounds flip, but it is not.


----------



## The_Universe (Sep 27, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> Are you accusing him of badwrongart?



I am saying that, by any objective standard, he's a hack. Her head isn't even in the middle of the picture! And she's not even smiling! If people weren't so easily influenced (what the Hell does the Louvre really know about art?) and so easily biased (they're just Da Vinci fanbois!) they'd understand that I've already painted things that are objectively a hundred times more meaningful!


----------



## Runestar (Sep 27, 2008)

Umbran said:


> I can make such an argument - judges should be biased towards good products.
> 
> That sounds flip, but it is not.




That just ends up saying everything yet nothing at all. How should they decide what constitute good products? 



> It's very possible that the term objective is being read in different ways. Perhaps you could explain your point without the term.




Pretty much the way Meg says it. For example, I too like dnd, even though I know it is chock full of flaws. But it is the game I grew up with, and I doubt I would switch to another game even if it proved to be a more mechanically robust system, like Saga. If I were to compare it with another gaming system, I would likely just keep seeing flaws in the latter and claiming how dnd is superior because of so and so, or try to diss a certain mechanic and claim how it sucks and is inferior to dnd's version. 

Would it be fair to the system since it was never meant to emulate dnd in the first place? No. Can I be objective as a result? Unlikely. 



> I guess I'll never know why you feel Changeling the Lost is bad, why Animalcast is amateur, or why Epic Role Playing is in a worse class from the rest. You only tell me that they are.




She doesn't need to. What suffices is that she does have her own reasons for liking what she does, and that there are bound to be people who disagree with her choices. The crux here is that I doubt even the judges would be exempt themselves. They are going to have their own rationales for making the picks and decisions they do. 

So when someone else has a differing opinion, who is right now? If you say that both are right, just for different reasons and rationales, then what is it that makes the judges' opinions hold any more water/weight than the rest of us? They should be correct because they are an authority in this field, not simply because they are in authority.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 27, 2008)

Runestar said:


> That just ends up saying everything yet nothing at all. How should they decide what constitute good products?




There is only one possible way - personal judgment.  No objective measure exists, so that leaves us only with the subjective.  The past argumentative year or so on EN World shows that very clearly - our community does not have a single standard for "good".



> So when someone else has a differing opinion, who is right now?




The issue isn't differing opinion - the issue is whether the existence of differing opinions implies that the system is broken.  I don't hold that it does.



> If you say that both are right, just for different reasons and rationales, then what is it that makes the judges' opinions hold any more water/weight than the rest of us? They should be correct because they are an authority in this field, not simply because they are in authority.




That is why we _elect_ judges.  We put them into the position of authority.  If we put people there who are not authorities in the field, that is our own fault.


----------



## Qualidar (Sep 27, 2008)

Runestar said:


> Pretty much the way Meg says it. For example, I too like dnd, even though I know it is chock full of flaws. But it is the game I grew up with, and I doubt I would switch to another game even if it proved to be a more mechanically robust system, like Saga. If I were to compare it with another gaming system, I would likely just keep seeing flaws in the latter and claiming how dnd is superior because of so and so, or try to diss a certain mechanic and claim how it sucks and is inferior to dnd's version.
> 
> Would it be fair to the system since it was never meant to emulate dnd in the first place? No. Can I be objective as a result? Unlikely.




Wow. Remind me never to vote for you as an ENnies judge, then. 

I love Mutants and Masterminds, but I'm capable of looking at Hollow Earth Expedition and judging it as a separate entity. I'm not downgrading HEX because it doesn't allow me to create someone that can fly and shoot lasers out of their eyes. And were they both entered into a competition and I judged M&M to be the better game, than no foul, because it's my job to vote for the one that I think is the best.





Runestar said:


> ...The crux here is that I doubt even the judges would be exempt themselves. They are going to have their own rationales for making the picks and decisions they do.
> 
> So when someone else has a differing opinion, who is right now? If you say that both are right, just for different reasons and rationales, then what is it that makes the judges' opinions hold any more water/weight than the rest of us? They should be correct because they are an authority in this field, not simply because they are in authority.




There _are_ no authorities in this field. On the surface you, Meg, or I are just as qualified to make these decisions as Xath or The Universe. What makes _them_ more qualified at this point is that they have read all of the submissions put forth, so they have the best perspective to judge the entrants against each other.

What sets them apart from us is the fact that they bothered to run for the position, and committed to doing a mind-numbing amount of work for free.


What exactly are the standards that you would have products measured by: spelling? grammar? paper quality? maximum cost to word-count ratio? binding integrity?

If we get rid of subjective measurement, here's what we can't account for in the judging process: art, graphic design, emotional impact, creativity, relevance. Those are all measured subjectively.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 27, 2008)

Crothian said:


> there would be a predetermined checklist of criteria that determines what is a good book.




Well that I object to completely.  You don't need judges for that, just a formula!

The ENnies are democratic.  Nobody tells the judges _how_ they should vote; nobody has the right to, and nobody should have the right to.  They are democratically elected representives, who campaign for election with platforms.  The community votes and elects these judges as their representaives.  If their platform is "I will only vote for games with pink covers" and the community votes to elect that judge, then democracy has spoken, however much Megan or anyone else may disagree.

One person. One vote.  Democracy.  Nobody gets to say "the majority is wrong".

And THAT is the fundamental principle of the ENnies.  Democracy.  And anyone who diagreess with how it goes is more than welcome to run for election.  If they have valid points and the _majority_ agree, they'll get elected.  Everyone has the opportunity and the power.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 27, 2008)

Runestar said:


> That just ends up saying everything yet nothing at all. How should they decide what constitute good products?




In any way they choose, as democratically elected representatives. You vote for the people who will judge the way you want them to.

What we _don't _do is tell the judges how to vote.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 27, 2008)

Runestar said:


> what is it that makes the judges' opinions hold any more water/weight than the rest of us? They should be correct because they are an authority in this field, not simply because they are in authority.




They are correct in that they are the five people that the community has collectively decided each year via democratic election represents their feelings towards RPG products.

Mod hat: [Not a reference to anyone in particular: just a note] You are welcome argue against democracy, but please be careful: politics aren't allowed on EN World, so it must be kept to democracy _specifically_ in the context of the ENnies.  No references to real life politics or governments.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 27, 2008)

Runestar said:


> So when someone else has a differing opinion, who is right now? If you say that both are right, just for different reasons and rationales, then what is it that makes the judges' opinions hold any more water/weight than the rest of us? They should be correct because they are an authority in this field, not simply because they are in authority.




They have authority to make the nominations because we gave it to them, they have our mandate to do it. And we gave them that because, through the campaign and election, they managed to convince more of us than not that they had sufficiently broad interest and faculties of good judgment that we could trust them in their ENnies judge role.
It's how any form of representative democracy works. Leaving it up to all of us to make the nominations is impractical, so we rely on a panel to do it for us. A panel that is selected from among us in a fair process. 
I'm not sure I'd like to have the nominations come from some "authority" figure. Who would that be? Who would validate that that figure is actually authoritative? Why, given the tendency for gamers to fracture and squabble, would you expect any "authority" figure to be broadly accepted, much less universally accepted?
Better to rely on a process in which we cede our personal authority by casting votes to elect a panel of judges.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Sep 27, 2008)

Runestar said:


> They should be correct because they are an authority in this field, not simply because they are in authority.




I don't know what constitutes 'an authority' but I think we all spelled out our qualifications pretty clearly.

Besides, a wat'ry tart threw a sword at me and told me I should be an ENnies judge.  What more authority do I need?


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 27, 2008)

The_Universe said:


> And lo, you shall know him by his crazy teeth.




How is this, and Psion's original quote, not rude?

It's cracks like this that give ENWorld the split personality rep that it has.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 27, 2008)

Master of the Game said:


> 2) Now this I think is unfortunate, but having been a judge I could see how it would happen.  The ENnies rely on publishers to honor the entry dates.  Someone somewhere made a mistake and no one caught it.  If the mistake was caught after voting was over and the date was off by a few days as an honest mistake, would you really take back their award?  We're not talking about disqualifying someone, we're talking about a big, embarrassing retraction for a 5 day mistake.  At worst the product would have been entered this year instead.  It's not a small issue, and it hopefully will lead to better vetting in the future, but this is a reasonable way to handle the issue and learn from the mistake.




I think this really bears more thinking about for the future. If a cutoff is not really a cutoff, would someone making a 10 or 20 day mistake be allowed in? I have no problem with the staff's decision, however I can see how this looks to some gamers like it's no big deal, to others that it's an accommodation to Monte since he's popular, and yet others that this may be a bit of a slippery slope but the decision to keep the award as is was fair.


----------



## Master of the Game (Sep 27, 2008)

Varianor Abroad said:


> I think this really bears more thinking about for the future. If a cutoff is not really a cutoff, would someone making a 10 or 20 day mistake be allowed in? I have no problem with the staff's decision, however I can see how this looks to some gamers like it's no big deal, to others that it's an accommodation to Monte since he's popular, and yet others that this may be a bit of a slippery slope but the decision to keep the award as is was fair.




Agreed.  It's not really "ok", but so long as it's used as a learning experience it's "reasonable."

Everyone has made a mistake, and some times it's just too late to take it back.


----------



## Praesul (Sep 27, 2008)

Crothian said:


> Judges have never gotten paid.  What Zach is talking about is an idea that was talked about but never implemented.  There are lots of ideas that get talked about behind the scenes but only those policies that get announced are the ones you should be concerned with.




Are you serious..?  You're seriously telling someone to nevermind what's being talked about, just mind what we've told you.  That kind of blind allegiance is something the general public usually reserves for the Federal Government!

In all seriousness, policy discussion is an important indicator in the fundamental driving force of an organization or institution.  If those in charge of policy continually talk about a certain policy change or idea, it is very likely that policy will eventually be enacted.  If nothing else, it gives you some insight into the views of those in charge of the organization.  People like transparency in organizations they are supposed to trust, including organizations that are giving their recommendation of a product through the doling out of awards.

Telling people to mind their own business does not build that trust.  I, for one, continue to disregard most awards like these.  They are as objective as political endorsements and negligibly more useful.


----------



## Waylander the Slayer (Sep 27, 2008)

So I actually listened to the entire podcast to understand what you state Meghan.  The intro  for the podcast was just horrendous- akin to the "12 year old writing" comment that you stated in your review of Changling for the "Best Writing."

That aside, your criticism of the products were very judgemental and an opinion. That's what Judges do as well. I am unclear as to what your "qualifications" or "expertise" are in comparison to the judges of the Ennies that would make your judgement any more or less valid than those of the judges.

 I am sure anyone could go through any of the nominees and make similar comments about any of the books. Ultimately the aim of a consensus among multiple judges is to even out this natural and inherent bias.


----------



## The_Universe (Sep 27, 2008)

Varianor Abroad said:


> How is this, and Psion's original quote, not rude?
> 
> It's cracks like this that give ENWorld the split personality rep that it has.



You're absolutely right, and I edited my comments as I thought better of it this morning.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 27, 2008)

Praesul said:


> Are you serious..?  You're seriously telling someone to nevermind what's being talked about, just mind what we've told you.  That kind of blind allegiance is something the general public usually reserves for the Federal Government!
> 
> In all seriousness, policy discussion is an important indicator in the fundamental driving force of an organization or institution.  If those in charge of policy continually talk about a certain policy change or idea, it is very likely that policy will eventually be enacted.  If nothing else, it gives you some insight into the views of those in charge of the organization.  People like transparency in organizations they are supposed to trust, including organizations that are giving their recommendation of a product through the doling out of awards.
> 
> Telling people to mind their own business does not build that trust.  I, for one, continue to disregard most awards like these.  They are as objective as political endorsements and negligibly more useful.




I think you're overreacting here. The ENnies board isn't some shadowy conspiracy trying to sell books of the companies they're friends with. They're just some gamers.

Think about it: how often have you been planning your game and come up with some massively stupid ideas for an adventure, or plot, or whatever? You come up with a boring villain, or an overpowered combat, or a plot that's too railroady. If you briefly flirted with the idea of taking away the players' magic items that they love so very very much, but decided it would be a bad idea, why would you want to tell the players about it? Sure, it might foster trust with some players that, "Oh, thank goodness my DM is wise enough not to steal my stuff," but other players might get upset over something that you were never seriously considering in the first place.

Feel free to ignore the awards (even though I'm pretty sure most people agree that the ENnies nominees are generally pretty awesome products). But please, don't turn an honest desire for transparency -- explaining how the books are judged, how the funds of the ENnies are spent, and so on -- into an overblown desire to police the thoughts of the judges. People are allowed to have an idea, recognize it as a bad one, and set it aside, without other people having the right to get on their case about it.


----------



## fusangite (Sep 27, 2008)

Here's a cross-posting of what I had to say in response to Houghton's statement on TheRPGSite: 







Zachary The First said:


> The ENnies feel that if you submit via link, you should pay an unprecedented submission fee to support the awards.



You say "unprecedented" like it's a bad thing. 

You proposed an unprecedented new policy. Rather than rejecting it out of hand, other members of the ENnies community decided to build an additional feature into your unprecedented proposal.

The absence precedent is neither a good nor a bad thing. It just is what it is. I think your proposal had merit; and I think the proposed amendment answered the concerns that many of us had about its implications. 

You proposed improving the awards. Others improved your proposal.







> In other words, they are asking you to pay them to consider your product's quality for the award.



Indeed. Is there a problem with that?







> Several individuals also wanted this as another "barrier" to the awards process, one of them going so far as to worry *"we'll get tons of ill-considered crap that isn't worth the time to download"*. Hardly the right attitude for a judge, I'd say.



So you feel that people don't produce ill-considered crap? Or that if people do, no one would enter it in the awards if entering it cost the absolutely nothing. Beyond a tap of control-C followed by control-V and clickin "Send."

If your unamended proposal were in effect, what, exactly, would stop an 11-year old recording his gaming sessions, putting them on his MySpace page and then forcing the judges to listen to five hours of them? What would stop someone taking every gaming session he wrote up printing it to a PDF file and sending it to the ENnies juddging panel? Nothing.

Maybe you don't have anything better to do with your time than read anything and everything people feel like sending you. But I don't think a high-quality judging panel could be maintained if the opportunity cost of submission were reduced to zero.







> I will tell you right now, I will not accept one red cent of that money.



Good! More money to cover administrative expenses.







> I disapprove of this measure entirely, and find it to be a move in the wrong direction for the openness and accessibility of the awards.



Is there anyone you know of who has the resources to create five hours of quality podcast or a competent, thoroughly-tested publication who doesn't have $10? 

Who are these mythical people who are producing product good enough to compete with WOTC who can't find $10? Because I'm just not seeing it.







> Instead of making a move that in no way hurt the ENnies



One of two things is true here:
(a) there are lots of people who could submit product for whom $10 is unaffordable; or
(b) there are very very few people who could submit product for whom $10 is unaffordable. 

If option (b) is true, your proposed policy is unnecessary; if option (a) is true, the awards will be hurt because the workload of judges will increase significantly beyond its already unsustainable level. The quality of judges and judging will go down if (a) is true; if (b) is true, not doing what you want will also "in no way hurt the ENnies."







> but instead possibly improved awards participation, ease, and lowering cost for the entrants,



Let's not lose sight of the fact that they mostly followed your suggestion.

Last year, it cost entrants about $50 to produce six CDs and courier them to the judges and administrators. This year, it will cost $10. By getting an amended version of your policy adopted, you have reduced their costs by 80%.  The costs for entrants were lowered. They just weren't abolished.







> they chose to go with a measure that provided a new income source for the awards, but that would do nothing to grow the awards in any sense.



So, lowering the entry cost by 80% while increasing the awards' revenue will "do nothing to grow the awards"?







> _Bear in mind, this is despite the ENnies allowing several last-minute "usual suspect" and much-vaunted companies to submit via link at the very end of the submission period last year (for no charge, of course)_!



Not having served as a judge last year I don't know what you're talking about and I don't know if this claim is accurate. Care to explain what you mean here?







> I am, in a word, disillusioned with the ENnies.



Because people took you seriously, accepted 80% of your proposal and moved forward with a new policy to accommodate your concerns? What ing bastards!







> I am disillusioned with this, I am disillusioned with the attitude shown towards podcasters and fan products,



Be specific here. The awards have bent over backwards, in my experience, to give these guys their due. In my view, they have gone too far in accommodating them.







> and I am disillusioned with the purposeful lack of transparency in the awards.



Specifics please. What does this mean?







> I am disappointed in the inconsistency shown on treatment of publishers and in dealing with technical issues.



Again, I see an accusation but I see no details that an observer could use to empirically verify your claims.







> I was especially angered and extremely disappointed when it was suggested that we retroactively change the submission cutoff dates for _Book of Experimental Might 2_ so that it would go undiscovered that it was accidentally ineligible for the awards period in question.



This statement is an out-and-out lie. You should be ashamed of posting it.

You know perfectly well that it was discovered after the nomination that it was published outside of the eligibility period. If it is your contention that someone knew the product was ineligible for nomination at the time it was nominated and that this was covered-up, please tell me who knew, how you know they knew and why they did this.







> I feel that judges should not be paid, but should be satisfied with the honor of being chosen to evaluate so much hard work (and all the books they receive on top of that).



I agree. And I have every confidence that these funds will be used not to pay the judges but to cover the costs they incur in the form of customs duties, travel and the other expenses that come with doing this job.

But I'm curious: clearly you don't think it is unethical to receive thousands of dollars worth of free product; why is the type of currency in which judges are compensated at issue? What is the actual _ethical_ difference between getting a $10 dollar book and getting $10.







> We have been entrusted to give every product a fair evaluation--there should be no bias or disgust at a product's chosen medium.



That's certainly true. But you make this statement as though it's connected to the other things you have said rather than just a motherhood statement you have chosen to affix to your diatribe.







> I don't feel any of this is in the spirit of making the awards transparent and more open.



Openness and transparency have nothing to do with the issue over which you resigned or with the proposal you made. So, again, this is just a left field observation.







> The air of prediliction towards certain favorites and an insular, incestuous culture for the awards themselves is a cancer which, if left untreated, will damage the awards' relevancy and standing.



Please stop lying. And if this isn't a lie, be specific: who are the judges who are biased, in whose favour are they biased and what is the evidence you are using to conclude this?







> With that in mind, and because I will not be a further party to matters I do not feel are right,



Finally -- honesty. 

What you are basically saying is: I think I'm right about everything and I cannot engage in cooperative decision-making with people who hold other opinions than my own. To which I say: good riddance.

I didn't vote for your re-election because it was clear to me that you are not a team player -- you don't seem to understand that a big part of being part of an elected group of representatives is learning to negotiate, cooperate and deliberate rationally. What I see from you is leaks, lies and extortion.







> I have suggested the ENnies contact alternate judge Jeramy Ware.



Good. He's above reproach. I was proud to be his colleague the year we were judges. If anyone thinks Jeramy would tolerate the things you claim are going on: corruption, cronyism and bias, then they know nothing about this guy.







> As I find it impossible to affect that change in this current situation, I can no longer support the ENnies.



Translation: As I feel that people should just do exactly what I tell them to instead of hammering-out a compromise with me on a new policy I'd like to introduce, I'm taking my ball and going home.

I'll have some more to say once I've digested the thread.


----------



## Praesul (Sep 27, 2008)

The difference is that your awards are a public entity while my session planning is not.  There's a huge difference in the desired level of transparency there, especially considering the fact that in one of the two examples there's a recommendation on how people spend their hard-earned money.


----------



## fusangite (Sep 27, 2008)

Praesul said:


> Are you serious..?



I have to ask the same of you: have you heard of any other awards judging panel that publishes every syllable of its internal discourse? Name one awards organization in the entire world that has decided your idea of  how deliberation should be run is a good idea.







> Telling people to mind their own business does not build that trust.  I, for one, continue to disregard most awards like these.  They are as objective as political endorsements and negligibly more useful.



You know what builds trust in an elected body?
(a) Open elections
(b) Good decision-making

We have both with the ENnies. Insisting that every single post in the ENnies judging and policy formation forums be written for public consumption will just create more work for the judges and drive the real decision-making underground into PMs and e-mails.

Look at the elected bodies in the real world where all statements are made for public consumption, places like Congress. Where does actual policy get formed? Certainly not on the floor of the chamber -- it gets formed in caucuses and in closed negotiating sessions. Processes of persuasion, deliberation and negotiation never take place in full daylight; that's not how human beings work. 

The best way to achieve transparency is through an open election process that produces a diversity of representatives coming from a variety of positions and backgrounds.


----------



## Praesul (Sep 27, 2008)

To be clear I never asked them to publish everything they talk about in private.  All I was attempting to say is that people always want to know what's going on behind the scenes.  When they find out, I would argue, the best response is not to tell them, "Mind your own business, we tell you what we want to tell you, anything else you should just ignore!"

If something gets out there about your organization, don't try and tell people to disregard it.  Try to tell them why they shouldn't be worried about it.  Telling people to mind their own business does nothing to dispel the ethical questions, whether real or imagined, raised by Zachary in his blog.  In fact, failing to respond to the allegations and implications seems to make them more believable.

To further clarify... I haven't heard anyone talk about the ethics of requiring a submission fee to people who make little or no profit from their intended submission.  Neither have I heard a response about a judge's name being listed on the back of a submitted work.

We have heard some replies about the submission deadline issue, but how long has it been since the awards?  Exactly how long did you need to formulate an announcement of the mistake which was made... isn't that the kind of transparency you're trying to achieve?


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 27, 2008)

Praesul, you seem to want a lot of stuff to be publicly announced when it really truly honestly isn't stuff that matters. Let me give you an example.

In 2005, when I was on the ENnies staff, I met and talked with Erik Mona of Paizo on Friday morning. Then, Friday evening, in the elevator up to the awards, I saw a guy who looked familiar and was like, "Hey, do I know you?" And he was like, "I'm Erik Mona, from Paizo. You talked to me this morning and gave me directions to the event."

That occurred as part of the ENnies. Do you think it's critical that the public knows it happened? I don't. I think it's just an embarrassing anecdote. In my judgment, it wasn't important to share this information with the public. I'm just sharing it now in an effort to show how unreasonable it is to expect the judges and staff to tell the public everything that goes on with the ENnies.

Let the judges and staff do their job. When some actual cronyism and abuse starts up, we should complain about it then. But people are making a mountain out of a molehill here.


----------



## fusangite (Sep 27, 2008)

Praesul said:


> To be clear I never asked them to publish everything they talk about in private.  All I was attempting to say is that people always want to know what's going on behind the scenes.  When they find out, I would argue, the best response is not to tell them, "Mind your own business, we tell you what we want to tell you, anything else you should just ignore!"



Glad to hear I misinterpreted you.

Here's my deal: an organization with a public image has to strike a delicate balance when it faces groundless, false accusations. Too much response and it appears to validate and encourage tinfoil hat-wearers, who know that they will be rewarded with attention whenever they decide to make up new falsehoods. Too little and it creates a perception of indifference or corruption. 

I think the ENnies generally do a pretty good job of maintaining that balance. But there is certainly room for improvement.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 27, 2008)

Praesul said:


> To be clear I never asked them to publish everything they talk about in private.  All I was attempting to say is that people always want to know what's going on behind the scenes.  When they find out, I would argue, the best response is not to tell them, "Mind your own business, we tell you what we want to tell you, anything else you should just ignore!"




Okay then. You and I have interpreted this thread much differently.

Don't disregard the news. Heck, I don't think anyone wants people to _ignore_ what Zachary has said. But we don't need to be worried about it, because Zachary's criticisms don't stand up to examination. Zachary has not come to EN World of late to respond to this thread, whereas several people have stood up and said, "The idea was proposed and they decided the money shouldn't go to the judges."

I think it's on Zachary now to make the case that there was actually any wrong-doing.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 27, 2008)

A quick $0.02, since I had the one nominated product in the "Fan products" category that was neither a podcast nor a website, but instead an adventure -- and actual gaming product, albeit in free pdf form from a not-for-profit endeavor:

1.  I think establishing firm categories is a good idea.  Lumping podcasts with websites is apples and oranges.  If there are fewer than five submissions, so what?  Less work for the judges (though I'd just drop the award for the year if there are fewer than three submissions in a category).  In hindsight, my adventure should have either gone in the adventures category or the free products category, but I take no issues with the judges decisions or outcomes.

2.  Websites aside, I don't thikn it is unreasonable to ask that a physical copy of the product (whether book or CD) be provided to the judges -- even if the submission is freely available for download online (as my product is).  For podcasts, the submission should be a representative episode; otherwise, you're asking judges to judge an entire body of work, not a discrete product.  Submitting to the Ennies cost me all of $13 shipping plus the cost of 6 CDs.  Compared to the time spent putting together the product, that's negligible, and is certainly worth the positive feedback that comes if the product is nominated.  Streamlining submissions, in my opinion, makes the process easier for the judges which gives them more time to look over and review products.  Plus the minor barrier of entry keeps out the folks who would otherwise just spam with links.  And it's fair for all products, though arguable still much cheaper for a pdf or podcast than for a print book.

3.  We know the Ennies is a subjective, fan-driven awards system.  The judges are nominated by popular acclaim, and the awards are presented that way.  It may not be perfect, but I for one am happy to have the process that gives the community a vote (two, infact).  It could be the Oscars, where a mysterious cabal chooses nominees and winners in a mist-shrouded process.  Given Oscars or Ennies, I choose Ennies.

4.  That said, a judges guide wouldn't hurt.  Whether as a general guide or by category, to prvide some general guideline -- transparent to the public -- that would provide the rough evaluation criteria the judges are supposed to follow.  The process would still be subjective, but it might be a little transparent -- you'd know that products being noninated for "best mechanics" didn't get the nomination because of great interior artwork (not that I feel that has happened).


So in summary, though there are potential areas for improvement, this particular free product submitter doesn't feel at all slighted by the way the Ennies submissions were stuctured or conducted this year.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 27, 2008)

Praesul said:


> Neither have I heard a response about a judge's name being listed on the back of a submitted work.




Up thread I asked what the book was.  I haven't seen a response to that and if I missed it, my bad.  But until I can see what is being talked about there is no response that can be given.


----------



## Praesul (Sep 27, 2008)

RangerWickett, you should read my reply to Fusangite.  You've both made assumptions about my intentions which are incorrect.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Sep 27, 2008)

Crothian said:


> Up thread I asked what the book was.  I haven't seen a response to that and if I missed it, my bad.  But until I can see what is being talked about there is no response that can be given.




Epic RPG.  Zachary Houghton has a blurb on the back cover: "Epic has definitely won itself a favored spot on my bookshelf."

A quote taken from his blog, apparently, and something no one should have a quibble with.  None of us know what products are going to be submitted in advance, and I think it's silly to expect gamers (which is all any of us judges are) to abstain from reading, playing, or commenting on messageboards as our fancy strikes us.  So long as there is no quid pro quo, obviously.

And in this particular instance, the quote is on the back of the cover of the copy I personally bought at GenCon '07; given the lead times for printing and what not, I'd be surprised if Zachary was even a judge at the time the quote was used.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 27, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> Epic RPG.  Zachary Houghton has a blurb on the back cover: "Epic has definitely won itself a favored spot on my bookshelf."




Thanks!!


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Sep 27, 2008)

Meghan said:


> These reviews were not based on opinion- we set the criteria for review before we opened them.




My non-opinion review of a book.  It has X word in it.  Here is the word breadown by frequency.  I found these spelling mistakes.

You can't review something "objectively".  You will be subjective at assigning values to any system you try top impart.


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 27, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> My non-opinion review of a book.  It has X word in it.  Here is the word breadown by frequency.  I found these spelling mistakes.
> 
> You can't review something "objectively".  You will be subjective at assigning values to any system you try top impart.




I believe (but I'm not going to assert as true) that the BG folks have established what they consider to be an objective, scientific approach to analysis of games in order to determine what makes them good or bad games. I do not believe that Meghan, Josh, or Zeke feel that their game analysis is opinion for this reason, and that judges should likewise establish this objective set of critera going forward.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Crothian (Sep 27, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> I believe (but I'm not going to assert as true) that the BG folks have established what they consider to be an objective, scientific approach to analysis of games in order to determine what makes them good or bad games. I do not believe that Meghan, Josh, or Zeke feel that their game analysis is opinion for this reason, and that judges should likewise establish this objective set of critera going forward.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




If they want to post the methodology I'd be happy to look it over.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 27, 2008)

The answer to "the judges should evaluate products the way that I do" is, simply, "run for election".


----------



## Treebore (Sep 27, 2008)

Praesul said:


> 1. To further clarify... I haven't heard anyone talk about the ethics of requiring a submission fee to people who make little or no profit from their intended submission.
> 
> 2.  Neither have I heard a response about a judge's name being listed on the back of a submitted work.
> 
> 3.  We have heard some replies about the submission deadline issue, but how long has it been since the awards?  Exactly how long did you need to formulate an announcement of the mistake which was made... isn't that the kind of transparency you're trying to achieve?




1. There is no need for ethics. If they feel a fee is out of line  they do not have to submit anything. Simple. Why is ethics even an issue? Its not like anyone is being forced to submit anything. Asking for a small nominal fee to help cover costs of the awards as well as be fair to the other publishers that actually submit hundreds of dollars of product is being fair. Letting someone not have to pay anything because their product is free is what isn't fair. EVERYONE else is at the very least submitting 6 copies of their printed works. That costs money. In the case of Goodman Games it was $600.00 in product. 

So to be FAIR, I think paying a small fee of what? $10? Is very fair. I think crying that you have to actually give something that financially helps out the ENnies is a problem. Even so it is not. You don't like the fee, you don't like paying something, like everyone else does in some way, don't submit and don't pay. Simple. If you don't want to give up some kind of financial fee to the ENnies, do not participate. 

I know of several times items were not submitted for the ENnies, or at least seriously considered not submitting to the ENnies, because of how valuable their product was. Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing. Every time they ended up submitting, because to be nominated alone is good advertising, and winning is even better.

2. We haven't even been told who this supposed judge is, so how can we know unless we happen to own every product submitted to the ENnies. Rest assured if there was a judge who had product in the submissions, they knew they were not supposed to be a judge, and they will likely be banned from judging ever again.

Look at the requirements for running for a judge, you are to have NOTHING in print that will be up for consideration during your Judging period. I believe there is even a time requirement since the last time you had anything published.

Plus we don't even know if this judge was just a play tester for the game, or an actual writer/contributor. Let alone if a judge was indeed even guilty of such a thing. It is possible that someone with an identical name was published. If we go by that standard I have several books in publication. I never wrote, contributed, or playtested them, but my name is on them. Does that mean I shouldn't run for being Judge?

3. As has been said, they didn't catch the error until after the products nomination was announced. Should they ban Malhavoc Press for submitting something not eligible? Should the judges be banned for "X" number of years for allowing such a mistake to get by? What exactly should they have done?

    Doing their best to make sure it never happens again seems to be the most reasonable response to me. Its not like we can go back and re cast votes, etc... It is done.

If you can suggest a "fix" that would be fairer and more equitable to everyone please share!


----------



## Crothian (Sep 27, 2008)

Morrus said:


> The answer to "the judges should evaluate products the way that I do" is, simply, "run for election".




If there is a good way to look at RPGs that we haven't seen we should at least look at it.  There are many different approaches and I think it is unwise to dismiss someone's before hearing what it is.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 27, 2008)

Treebore said:


> 2. We haven't even been told who this supposed judge is




It was mentioned a page ago that it was Zach on the back of the Epic RPG.  It was a quote taken from his blog on the back cover like movie advertisements sometimes do.


----------



## Treebore (Sep 27, 2008)

Crothian said:


> It was mentioned a page ago that it was Zach on the back of the Epic RPG.  It was a quote taken from his blog on the back cover like movie advertisements sometimes do.





OK, so a total non issue. Thanks! I definitely missed that post!


----------



## Xath (Sep 28, 2008)

Thank you all for your concerns.  The ENnie Awards were very disappointed to learn of Zachary Houghton's resignation through his blog post, especially over what seems to be a misunderstanding within a private discussion.  We wish to express our regret that Mr. Houghton felt it necessary to withdraw from his post as judge, as he was a valued member of the ENnies panel in the 2008 season.  

I would like to encourage anyone with concerns to please address them to our ENnies Public Relations Coordinator.  Until such a time as a permanant PR Coordinator can be hired, I will be functioning in that capacity, in addition to my duties as a 2009 Judge.  Any concerns can be addressed to gertiebarden (at) gmail (dot) com until such a time as an official ENnies account can be created.  Any individuals wishing to volunteer as a member of the ENnies staff, whether as PR Coordinator or any of our other vacant positions, please contact Business Manager Denise Robinson through the ENnies website (The ENnie Awards- About the ENnies).  

Please understand that although current and former ENnies staff members and judges may be participating in the online discourse, only official statements made by the Business Manager, Public Relations Coordinater or Owner are considered representative of the awards.  As these staff members are also active members of the community, please understand that only those postings marked as official ENnies responses should be considered as such.

I will check this thread as often as I can, but for those with immediate concerns, the email address above is the most reliable method of contact.

Thank you,

Gertie Barden
ENnies Public Relations Coordinator


----------



## Master of the Game (Sep 28, 2008)

fusangite said:


> Good. He's above reproach. I was proud to be his colleague the year we were judges. If anyone thinks Jeramy would tolerate the things you claim are going on: corruption, cronyism and bias, then they know nothing about this guy.




Totally off topic, but can I just say that if you ever want to feel good about yourself you should really get on fusangite's good side.



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> _A whole lump of good ideas..._




I don't know that I agree with your number 1, but I certainly support the idea behind it.  I believe Morrus is right in that there needs to be a cut off, but maybe combing the the "fan products" categories isn't the best solution.  Personally I'm a huge fan of podcasts and listen to several, and I think that, in reality the belong under Regalia if anything (other than their own category).  Websites may as well.

The reasoning is simply that there are a lot of different types of podcasts, but very few are really judged on content.  People listen to most (my belief) because they are entertaining.  The fact that you learn something is, in a lot of cases, a pleasant side effect.  The Sons of Kryos, as a random example, has really helped me to improve my game, but I'd say that 80% or more of the reason that I listen is that I really like those guys.

If others out there are like me, and I suspect they are, then that's Regalia.  It adds to the enjoyment of our game without a direct impact on the rules or what have you.

So maybe the solution is to revisit the parenting system, but I don't really think that nominating a few products just because they were the only ones entered is a perfect solution.

That said, I really appreciate your points, and more importantly the way you made a convincing argument.  Other than that one little thing, I'm sold.


----------



## Master of the Game (Sep 28, 2008)

Also, in the interests of total disclosure, I should point out that I am now, officially, Zach's replacement.  I don't do it out of some sense of accomplishment, because really, who wants to be the guy that got in because someone else stepped aside?

I do think it's important however to be honest about where my opinions are coming from.  I just got official notice today, so regardless of how people may feel that this influences my posts I'll point out that up until the last one they were all made before I had been asked to step in.  I will admit that I did know it was a possibility however.

Anywho, for those that want transparency I'll argue this much:  I maintained a pretty thorough blog during my last term (2007).  I'm pretty sure it was the first dedicated ENnies judging blog, and I was never asked to take down a single post or withhold any information.

So, take it for what it's worth, but I guess I'll be firing up the old blog again (Blogging the ENnies).  I don't know if I warrant the "beyond reproach" title I have been so generously given, but I do my best and I'll absolutely be open with anything I feel that people should know.

I do admit right now though that I don't think that should include every off hand comment or thought someone puts on the table before it becomes official policy.  I'd be glad to talk about real policy that has actually been made, but I think that the idea that every discussion should be made public would only stifle people who have good ideas that they're afraid to bring up.

Everyone should have the opportunity to float an idea by their friends and coworkers, no matter how good or bad, without opening it up to public derision.  I think everyone has probably said something at one point or another that seemed stupid in hind sight, and I doubt you'd want weeks worth of debates or dozens of internet posts reminding you of it.

A person should be able to put something on the table and give others a chance to discuss it without fear of reprisal.

Now, if it becomes policy then yeah, let's complain about a stupid idea that sucks.  I believe that the ENnies, like anything, can only be made better by openly discussing the way the rules, categories, or entries work.  But complaining about something that never happened is counter-productive.  If you hear that they are considering and you think it's a bad idea say so, maybe you will stop something before it becomes an issue, but it's not fair to vilify an idea like it's a done deal.

Has anyone actually paid such a fee yet?

Seriously, discuss your concerns.  Obviously it has some effect if the judges are discussing ways to change it in light of the complaints with how it was handled last year.  Don't be too upset yet that there haven't been changes that you like because if Zach's post doesn't tell you anything more then it obviously points out that they're at least thinking about it and taking peoples' concerns seriously.

The ENnies are a committee.  These things take time and discussion, and ripping apart every bad idea that may have hit the table is only going to discourage the guy who has the right solution from putting it forward.  Offer advise, please, and constructive criticism, but taking one person's criticism as gospel, especially without further commentary, is a dangerous path to tread.


----------



## Xath (Sep 28, 2008)

That seems like a great approach Jeramy.  I'm really looking forward to working with you.


----------



## Terramotus (Sep 28, 2008)

This is ridiculous.

It's not pretending to be an elf for 5 hours a week that can at times make me feel embarrassed about my hobby, it's tempest in a teapot garbage like this.  This is not Serious Business, nor should it be.

1. If you think the awards are stupid and biased, don't submit, don't participate.

2. Public resignations and public complaining about situations you're involved in never make you look good, no matter how right you are.  It's rather Buddhist, really.

3. Judges are supposed to judge, and they're elected to boot.  I don't care about the results unless there is evidence that the guidelines aren't being followed.  If you don't like the choices, run for judge, but make sure to submit any of your own work or work affiliated with your own.  We wouldn't want favoritism.

Furthermore, I think that some individuals are revealing more than they think they are when they refuse to trust the judgment of others without strict guidelines.

4. If you're only doing a podcast out of love, then why is this that important?  Show me lost profits leading to lost livelihoods and then I'll care.  It shouldn't matter anyway; sustained quality always rises to the top.

5. Morrus, and others involved in the Ennies: thank you for your time and effort.  Don't let trash like this get you down.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Sep 28, 2008)

Terramotus said:


> This is ridiculous.




Wow. Well said. My thoughts exactly...


----------



## Maggan (Sep 28, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> I believe (but I'm not going to assert as true) that the BG folks have established what they consider to be an objective, scientific approach to analysis of games in order to determine what makes them good or bad games. I do not believe that Meghan, Josh, or Zeke feel that their game analysis is opinion for this reason, and that judges should likewise establish this objective set of critera going forward.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




I can believe that. What they should be doing with their set of criteria, is try to patent it, or package it in a way so that they can use it for other fields of publishing, for they would make billions. 

If it is true that they have found a way to do away with opinions when it comes to judging a game, and have a pure and scientific method, there's some sort of Nobel prize waiting in their future, for they have done what all of humanity up until now have failed to achieve!

I'm very interested in seeing their method!

/M


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 28, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:


> Wow. Well said. My thoughts exactly...




Ditto.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 29, 2008)

Varianor Abroad said:


> I think this really bears more thinking about for the future. If a cutoff is not really a cutoff, would someone making a 10 or 20 day mistake be allowed in? I have no problem with the staff's decision, however I can see how this looks to some gamers like it's no big deal, to others that it's an accommodation to Monte since he's popular, and yet others that this may be a bit of a slippery slope but the decision to keep the award as is was fair.



An idea for the future: allow for a period of something like a week between announcing the nominees and the start of voting. If someone has a problem with any of the nominees, this would give them time to file a complaint.

I don't follow the ins and outs of the ENnies, so it's possible this is already done.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Sep 29, 2008)

-Finished reading the threads-

-Wiped the stain marks from the screen-


.....


----------



## Monkey Boy (Sep 29, 2008)

*Zach responds at theRPGsite*

Zach backs himself in the discussion at theRPGsite:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=12054&page=11

I'm not sure if it's all that damning. 

While the drama is fun and all I think it's much ado about nothing. Also I think its sad that bridges are being burned.  It's kind of like a car wreck, I can't stop watching.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 29, 2008)

Ah, and another cross board turf war flames up. 
"Gotta love them crazies who think certain things are important enough to blather on on the internet," he said ironically.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 29, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> I believe (but I'm not going to assert as true) that the BG folks have established what they consider to be an objective, scientific approach to analysis of games in order to determine what makes them good or bad games.




I would expect that one might be able to do this for the _game_, insofar as game theory is a mathematical science, and could be applied.  

I am highly skeptical that such analysis can be done for the _role-playing_ part of the thing.  Basically, if you're thinking in terms of GNS theory, you can do some objective analysis of the G, but the value of N and S are entirely subjective.  You cannot objectively judge how things will mesh with people's imaginations.


----------



## Cam Banks (Sep 29, 2008)

Umbran said:


> I am highly skeptical that such analysis can be done for the _role-playing_ part of the thing.  Basically, if you're thinking in terms of GNS theory, you can do some objective analysis of the G, but the value of N and S are entirely subjective.  You cannot objectively judge how things will mesh with people's imaginations.




Oh, I agree. And there's an element of "you're playing it wrong" that comes out of that. In fact, I think they advocate the notion that many people are having fun playing bad games when they could be having MORE fun playing good games. Games they think are good: Savage Worlds, Spirit of the Century, Burning Wheel. Games they think are bad: All White Wolf Storyteller/Storytelling games, Serenity (and other games we make  ), etc.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Master of the Game (Sep 29, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> Oh, I agree. And there's an element of "you're playing it wrong" that comes out of that. In fact, I think they advocate the notion that many people are having fun playing bad games when they could be having MORE fun playing good games. Games they think are good: Savage Worlds, Spirit of the Century, Burning Wheel. Games they think are bad: All White Wolf Storyteller/Storytelling games, Serenity (and other games we make  ), etc.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




Well, as long as they're objective and not biased...


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 29, 2008)

Monkey Boy said:


> Zach backs himself in the discussion at theRPGsite:
> 
> http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=12054&page=11
> 
> I'm not sure if it's all that damning.



I think some of the "evidence" directly counters comments made here though.



> While the drama is fun and all I think it's much ado about nothing. Also I think its sad that bridges are being burned.  It's kind of like a car wreck, I can't stop watching.




It's a clique thing. Everyone that "knows" the folks on either side says they're great, honest folks that would never tell a lie. Even when they say stuff that's counter to the others views.

IMO, ENWorld and the Ennies have never had transparency in regards to money or policy decision. It doesn't matter, you make a choice if ENWorld is somewhere you want to support, and you make a choice whether the Ennies are a valid award or just a clique doling out praise. None of it really affects life.


----------



## Kishin (Sep 29, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> I believe (but I'm not going to assert as true) that the BG folks have established what they consider to be an objective, scientific approach to analysis of games in order to determine what makes them good or bad games. I do not believe that Meghan, Josh, or Zeke feel that their game analysis is opinion for this reason, and that judges should likewise establish this objective set of critera going forward.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




In other words, they believe they've discovered a way to have an objective opinion? 

Anything so heavily dependent on personal preference like the type of recreational activity someone enjoys is simply not going to be able to be evaluated on a purely objective basis. 



			
				Cam Banks said:
			
		

> In fact, I think they advocate the notion that many people are having fun playing bad games when they could be having MORE fun playing good games. Games they think are good: Savage Worlds, Spirit of the Century, Burning Wheel. Games they think are bad: All White Wolf Storyteller/Storytelling games, Serenity (and other games we make  ), etc.
> 
> The fact is, though, these people are having _fun, _and no one else is being hurt by it. I don't see why this is so offensive. I don't e-rage at people over the fact that I enjoy objective based FPS games over Deathmatches (As an example), why should they conduct themselves similarly?


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 29, 2008)

Terramotus said:


> This is ridiculous.
> 
> It's not pretending to be an elf for 5 hours a week that can at times make me feel embarrassed about my hobby, it's tempest in a teapot garbage like this. This is not Serious Business, nor should it be.
> 
> ...




*NO! THIS IS NOT RIDICULOUS!*

People have a way of deciding what's serious, or not serious, for themselves, based on what's important to THEM. If it's not serious for you, fine, take your own advice and "DON'T PARTICIPATE". However, I feel that the above post you wrote puts the lie to your not taking this seriously. If it wasn't serious to you, I don't think you would have posted at all.

You have some good points about many of the posts on this thread. Your opinion of what Zach did, and the things that a certain disgruntled podcaster said, are your opinions. I agree with you for the most part, but agree even more that you're entitled to your opinions, and your right to voice those opinions. I wouldn't call your opinions "*ridiculous*" or "*garbage*", I'd appreciate if you'd extend the same courtesy to everyone else.

Whether you agree with what Zach said, or how he did it, it was something that needed to be dealt with by those involved with the ENNies. It was an accusation of impropriety, that whether true or not, could not be ignored by those involved with this. Up until this thread, that is exactly what was happening. The problem *was* being ignored. The initial response to Zach's resignation on the ENNies site was a non-response. Whether you feel the ENNies are important or not, or serious or not, there are those who do. There are people who think that "ENNies Award Winner" tag on products means something, and Zachs "letter" cast the value of that in doubt. Whether or not it's right or wrong for Zach to reveal things that were discussed behind closed doors (however, I do feel that was wrong), once he did it, it had to be dealt with.

I feel that the people involved with the ENNies did a very good job of revealing exacly what really happened behind those closed doors, but until this thread, they weren't doing that. There were some people, that in their opinions, had some valid concerns and voiced those concerns in this thread. Because of those posts, those involved with the ENNies rose to the occasion and dealt with those concerns in an excellent manner. And I feel, because they responded, they sufficiently had their ire up to very soundly deal with a certain disgruntled podcaster.

I think after someone reads this thread, and I mean the entire thread, not just skimming it, they will realise for themselves that this is a non-issue. However, the same couldn't be said *before* the Staff and Judges of the ENNies spoke up. What happened here is that the truth behind this issue was revealed, *because of the discourse and opinions of those who contributed to this thread*. I for one, definitely do not consider that ridiculous.


----------



## jdrakeh (Sep 29, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> It's a clique thing. Everyone that "knows" the folks on either side says they're great, honest folks that would never tell a lie.




Plenty of folks who know the people on _both_ sides of the issue have nothing positive to say about one side or the other, actually — you're just reading the wrong thread


----------



## Settembrini (Sep 30, 2008)

Well, at least the provided evidence shows that the CM-popular kids-clique-Judges & their Dinner-buddies _have agreed upon lying_ to you the interested fan & customer on at least two occasions _to cover up errors_ in the process.

You might not care for these process-mistakes, but if they really were minor, there would not have been a problem with being frank about it, no?

EDIT: Just to be clear, I´m talking about the pdf-download issue and the Monte Cook submission. Actually with the other pdf download issue regarding last year´s "avoided" law suit, it´s three times of agreement to ly to the public to cover up errors.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 30, 2008)

Settembrini said:


> Well, at least the provided evidence shows that the CM-popular kids-clique-Judges & their Dinner-buddies _have agreed upon lying_ to you the interested fan & customer on at least two occasions _to cover up errors_ in the process.
> 
> You might not care for these process-mistakes, but if they really were minor, there would not have been a problem with being frank about it, no?
> 
> EDIT: Just to be clear, I´m talking about the pdf-download issue and the Monte Cook submission. Actually with the other pdf download issue regarding last year´s "avoided" law suit, it´s three times of agreement to ly to the public to cover up errors.




"Agreement to Lie" means conspiracy and collusion, and I see absolutely no evidence of that.  Please point out or list this evidence because I either don't see it, or it hasn't been revealed in this thread.

_Did they make mistakes?_  Yes.

_Did they have a lack of transparency about them?_  Yes

_Have they come clean about them during the course of this thread?_  Yes

_Do I feel that they acted improprietously?_  After hearing there explanations and comparing it with what Zach wrote in his resignation and the above link to his posts, 100% NO.

_Did they purposely discuss and then decide to not reveal those mistakes?_  I just don't see it, and don't see anywhere in this thread where that was said.  If you were there during these discussions, and have the evidence to back it up, I'm sure everyone would be willing to listen to you.  Until then . . .


----------



## Settembrini (Sep 30, 2008)

El MAhdi: I´m not yelling "conspiracy", but I do think



> _Did they purposely discuss and then decide to not reveal those mistakes?_ I just don't see it, and don't see anywhere in this thread where that was said. If you were there during these discussions, and have the evidence to back it up, I'm sure everyone would be willing to listen to you. Until then . . .




can be adressed with this

book of experimental might discussion - Photos - RPGpundit's Xanga Site

and this

more allowed pdf downloads 2008 ennies & warning - Photos - RPGpundit's Xanga Site


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 30, 2008)

Okay *Settembrini*, I see your point to a certain extent, but I just don't see it as purposefully lying. You do see it that way, I understand how you are coming to that, I'll just have to agree to disagree with you.

However, I feel (IMO) that the majority of their problem here is a lack of transparency. I read some of those posts from Zach from the links a little further up-thread. It was said there that maybe they need a PR person, but instead went for just a submissions manager. Maybe that was a mistake. I think they could really use some PR help.

The reprinting of those e-mails is probably a sore point also. If the people involved with the ENNies felt that Zachs releasing of things discussed in closed meetings was upsetting, then posting private e-mails is probably _very_ upsetting to them. I see that as a breach of privacy, they probably do also. If not actually required (I don't know if there are laws covering this or not), I think it's at least standard ettiquette to have permission to release private e-mails.


----------



## jdrakeh (Sep 30, 2008)

Settembrini said:


> Well, at least the provided evidence shows that the CM-popular kids-clique-Judges & their Dinner-buddies _have agreed upon lying_ to you the interested fan & customer on at least two occasions _to cover up errors_ in the process.




I see absolutely no evidence of _any_ lies. 

I see one staffer (a coordinator of some sort, not a judge) suggesting that a policy be retroactively altered to obscure an error (which, for the record, I think was a really uncool suggestion) — but absolutely _nobody_ else agreeing with him or any proof that the suggested course of action was ever followed. Indeed, there is an open announcement on the ENnies home page that clearly proves the suggestion was _not_ followed. Thus, _no lie_. 

I see no other proof of "lies" or anything that could, barring wishful thinking or creative exagerration, be offered as proof of a "lie". What I _do_ see is somebody with a long-standing, openly admittted, resentment against this site exploting the situation to promote the personal blog of a long since banned user who, himself, has a long-standing, openly admitted, resentment against this site that stems directly from aformentioned banning.


----------



## evileeyore (Sep 30, 2008)

Settembrini said:


> Well, at least the provided evidence shows that the CM-popular kids-clique-Judges & their Dinner-buddies _have agreed upon lying_ to you the interested fan & customer on at least two occasions _to cover up errors_ in the process.
> 
> You might not care for these process-mistakes, but if they really were minor, there would not have been a problem with being frank about it, no?
> 
> EDIT: Just to be clear, I´m talking about the pdf-download issue and the Monte Cook submission. Actually with the other pdf download issue regarding last year´s "avoided" law suit, it´s three times of agreement to ly to the public to cover up errors.




Sooo... I'm guessing you couldn't take fusangite's logical refutations on the RPGSite and have come here hoping to escape it?

How foolish.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 30, 2008)

Sett, is your argument that one member of a committee - who's not the official spokesperson - can make official policy declarations on a private email list?

Look, I know that this grand conspiracy is much, much weaker than you wanted it to be.  But find elsewhere to get your pound of flesh.

-O


----------



## Settembrini (Sep 30, 2008)

Now you are constructing something, jdrakeh. I don´t have a dislike for ENnworld, just one for CM, 4e and Teflon Billy. But apart from that, I visit and enjoy ENnworld every day, and link to it regularly. Out of the thingws above 4e has curbed my enthusiasm sorely, but I´m not alone and the ed wars have definitely changed these boards for the worse, no matter if you are pro 4e or anti whatever.

Everyone can download the files via rapidshare or something similiar, and I only used pundit´s site because he already hosted them.


Anyway, 



> I see one staffer (a coordinator of some sort, not a judge) suggesting that a policy be retroactively altered to obscure an error (which, for the record, I think was a really uncool suggestion) — but absolutely _nobody_ else agreeing with him or any proof that the suggested course of action was ever followed. Indeed, there is an open announcement on the ENnies home page that clearly proves the suggestion was _not_ followed. Thus, _no lie_



. 

Well, but what happened actually?
Nothing! 
The policy was not altered retroactively.
The error was not made public to the interested parties (voters & competitors).
The award was not revoked.

So, what do you call that? I call that misinformation to cover up a mistake. And that´s lying in my book.

There also was a blatant lie:

The official statement that link-submissions weren´t allowed. Where in fact for certain games they WERE allowed last year.

As much as I can understand the sympathy many people have towards the ENnie staff, because they hang around together a lot, there are things that have gone pretty wrong.

Not only on the process but in the mindset of the ENnies regulars (=CM-clique).

And this is the "scandal" from my point of view, not that some mistake happened, but the way it was treated: cover up operations

@El Mahdi: It´s basically irrelevant to our discussion if the sources are "legal". Is it "legal" for some internet dudes to threaten Zach´s family? Because that´s what happened before Zach went public with the eMails. he was attacked by many hate mails, threats included. Both things are a breach of etiquette, both are petty & irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I think making it possible for everyone to review the evidence himself is a great boon. It keeps the discussion grounded on facts and their interpretation instead of wild speculation and accusation.


----------



## Settembrini (Sep 30, 2008)

evileeyore said:


> Sooo... I'm guessing you couldn't take fusangite's logical refutations on the RPGSite and have come here hoping to escape it?
> 
> How foolish.




Please drop it. This is not the place, it´s moderated, you know?

I just wanted to make some facts clear that are hidden under the carpet.

Fusangite made a fool of himself back at theRPGsite, there is no need to revenge for anything.


----------



## Monkey Boy (Sep 30, 2008)

jdrakeh said:


> I see one staffer (a coordinator of some sort, not a judge) suggesting that a policy be retroactively altered to obscure an error (which, for the record, I think was a really uncool suggestion) — but absolutely _nobody_ else agreeing with him or any proof that the suggested course of action was ever followed. Indeed, there is an open announcement on the ENnies home page that clearly proves the suggestion was _not_ followed. Thus, _no lie_.




Not entirely correct from what I gather. Kennon is a judge this year and was a co-ordinator last year. So he would be spitballing this idea from an official judge capacity.


----------



## Zinegata (Sep 30, 2008)

I'm fairly late coming into the discussion but this kinda drew my attention:



Morrus said:


> Or _maybe_ there's an underlying reason why that judge had a positive opinion of a product. because, just maybe, they were good products, and the judges agreed that this was so.
> 
> By your logic, any product a judge has seen before and deemed of quality is automatically ineligle for nomination. Crap, we'd have publishers trying to _hide_ their best work from potential judges, just in case they saw it and formed an opinion!




Yes, judges are allowed to have an opinion. They can have likes or dislikes. However, there is just one problem:

In at least one case, a judge crossed the line from expressing a "personal opinion" to "having a conflict of interest."

See, according to Meg...



> And then another book which we were just confounded by as a nomination- Epic Role Playing- wasn't in the same class as the other nominees.  It seemed like a good start, but very amateurish.  But low and behold, turn the book over and guess who one of the accolades printed on the back is from?  Yep, Zachary the First, which means he saw it before it was released, already favored it, and then "judged" it?




Now, I cannot confirm this as I don't own the book. But if Zachary was indeed quoted by Epic Role Playing, then it represents a clear *conflict of interest*. 

The fact that your quote appears on the book means that you had access to the book _prior_ to its release. Therefore, the judge at the very least had "behind the scenes" access to the material, or he was directly involved in its creation. 

Now, people may argue that this is merely an innocent coincidence and the judge just really liked the book. This may indeed be the truth of the matter. But from a _professional_ perspective, this is a pretty clear ethical violation. 

Zachary was _involved_ in some way with the Epic Role Playing book. Therefore, he should have excused himself from a supposedly _independent_ competition whose incidental purpose is to help advertise and increase the sales of such books. 

Again, whether the association is innocent or not is irrelevant. By the mere fact that he's associated with the publication prior to the book's release, Zachary should have excused himself from judging that particular book. This is the norm for _all_ reputable ventures.


----------



## One Horse town (Sep 30, 2008)

Imagine a billboard poster for a film.

*King Kong*

_A wonderfully entertaining and scary tale - _New York Times



Would you say that the NYT was involved in some way with the film? or because the critic liked it he shouldn't be able to judge it along with the other films released that year? Or would you say both? Seems like a strange argument to me.

Also wasn't Epic released before and this product was a 'tidy-up' or collection of stuff previously found elsewhere? Not sure, but i seem to recal something along those lines.


----------



## jdrakeh (Sep 30, 2008)

One Horse town said:


> Imagine a billboard poster for a film.
> 
> *King Kong*
> 
> ...




FWIW, an excerpt of a review that I wrote of the original Epic products is also cited on the cover of the Epic book that was submitted for judging. I was not at all directly involved with the product's inception, production, or marketing. I believe that this was also true in Zachary's case. I don't think that there is a clear conflict there. 

That said, as a huge _fan_ of Epic since reviewing it I would have made this known and excused myself from judging the product in question — as Zachary should have (and possibly did, for all I know). He was also a big, unabashed, fan of Epic and one of its boosters on various different forums (notably RPGNet and theRPGsite, though). 



> Also wasn't Epic released before and this product was a 'tidy-up' or collection of stuff previously found elsewhere? Not sure, but i seem to recal something along those lines.




The submitted product was a re-issue of previous books, better formatted for easy access and released in hardcover format via Lulu.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 30, 2008)

Settembrini said:


> The official statement that link-submissions weren´t allowed. Where in fact for certain games they WERE allowed last year.




The only exceptions to this I can recall, as I said up thread, were for products sent that for whatever reason not everyone got or products we got via CD that just didn't work.


----------



## evileeyore (Sep 30, 2008)

Settembrini said:


> Well, but what happened actually?
> Nothing!
> The policy was not altered retroactively.
> The error was not made public to the interested parties (voters & competitors).
> The award was not revoked.



ZOMG!  So for 39 days _they_ did nothing!?!

J'accuse!  Release the hounds!



> So, what do you call that? I call that misinformation to cover up a mistake.



I call that the _begining_ of an email conversation 39 days ago, that may have easily lasted a whole month.  During which time, as has been explained to you at _that other site_ "they" decided to get an ENnies PR person in place to handle this problems, namely making announcements and mea culpas.

OMG!  It wasn't instantly so it msut be a c-o-n-spiracy!




> And that´s lying in my book.



Strange, I use similiar words for what your doing after having something explained to you to be roughly the opposite of what you keep spotting.



> There also was a blatant lie:
> 
> The official statement that link-submissions weren´t allowed. Where in fact for certain games they WERE allowed last year.



From what I gather, though I haven't seen an official statement, it was to the affect of "mailed cds didn't work so links were allowed in a few instances".

Honestly if you can't accept that, I donl;t think a rational conversation can take place.



> As much as I can understand the sympathy many people have towards the ENnie staff, because they hang around together a lot, there are things that have gone pretty wrong.




I don't know any of these people IRL.

All I saw as "wrong" was on Zach's end.  There is privacy and discussing your problems with the people you have problems with like rational adults... then there is taking tall tales to people known to be 'enemies' of those your having a disagreement with.




> And this is the "scandal" from my point of view, not that some mistake happened, but the way it was treated: cover up operations



Right.  One guy said "Hey, maybe we can pretend it never happened?  No one wil notice" and a discussion was born.  Don't know how it ended, but I can guess it wasn't "Lets immediately shout it from the rooftops" so Zach got pissy and stopped trying to make things better from within the system and went all "rebel alliance" and sent the "damning evidence" to Pundit.

Many Bothans died... yada, yada...



> @El Mahdi: It´s basically irrelevant to our discussion if the sources are "legal". Is it "legal" for some internet dudes to threaten Zach´s family? Because that´s what happened before Zach went public with the eMails. he was attacked by many hate mails, threats included.



Really?

Zach ponied up the first set of emails pretty quickly, why not this set.  Or hey, get the police involved.  Thats what I'd do.

Or he can continue waving at "email" proof.  The last wasn't at all daming.  I have serious doubts about any others.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 30, 2008)

Zinegata said:


> The fact that your quote appears on the book means that you had access to the book _prior_ to its release. Therefore, the judge at the very least had "behind the scenes" access to the material, or he was directly involved in its creation.




With the release of PDFs before print books it is possible to see a book in PDF form along with anyone else that wants to buy it well before the print version is out.  I've been quoted on the back of a book before from a review I wrote and that was what happened.  

Also, I don't see how getting a book before its release anyway would equal bias.  I've gotten books early and some of them have still sucked.  If he was involved in its creation then that is bad but I haven't seen any evidence of that.


----------



## jdrakeh (Sep 30, 2008)

evileeyore said:


> ZOMG!  So for 39 days _they_ did nothing!?!




_Exactly_. I dunno about you, but where I come from, a "cover up" requires some. . . erm. . . _covering up_. Discussing policy and taking no action to hide an error despite at least one suggestion to do so is pretty much the exact opposite of that, as far as I can tell. And then you have the whole publically announcing the error bit. I mean, if publically announcing an error isn't the exact opposite of hiding it from the public, I'm not sure what is. 



> I call that the _begining_ of an email conversation 39 days ago, that may have easily lasted a whole month.




That's the other thing. While the snippets of email may be damning when examined in a vaccuum, if one considers all of the other explanations and action taken (or not taken) the emails themselves prove almost _nothing_ that Zachary claimed, past the fact that one guy (a staffer, not a judge) suggested policy be retroactively altered to hide an error that was, in fact, _not_ hidden and, instead, publically announced in the end. 



> From what I gather, though I haven't seen an official statement, it was to the affect of "mailed cds didn't work so links were allowed in a few instances".




I actually believe that there was a quote to that effect in one of the supposedly damning emails, as well. 



> Zach ponied up the first set of emails pretty quickly, why not this set.




Yeah, I'm skeptical about the claims of death threats given that the first lot of email didn't contain what he claimed it did. Also, I'm under the impression that most of the people involved on the ENnies side of things wish that Zachary would go away and, therefore, seem very unlikely to have issued threats urging him to stir up even more drama.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 30, 2008)

Settembrini said:


> Well, but what happened actually?
> Nothing!
> The policy was not altered retroactively.
> The error was not made public to the interested parties (voters & competitors).
> The award was not revoked.




1. The plan was in place to announce the mistake and own up to it as soon as a PR director was put in place. Zachary jumped the gun because he apparently couldn't wait a couple weeks. Bear in mind, the ENnies are managed in people's free time, so sure, the folks in charge weren't bending over backwards to make the announcement right away, but they were going to do it. Sarcastic congratulations to Zachary for 'whistleblowing' something that was going to be announced anyway. Now he just made himself look unprofessional, and he's damaged the reputation of good people.

2. As you say, the policy was not altered retroactively. The ENnies staff was going to own up to the mistake, not try to cover it up.

3. The error was going to be made public.

4. Revoking the award would have been a bad idea. A lot of people agree on this. Malhavoc made an honest mistake in submitting it, and the ENnies staff made an honest mistake in accepting it. You should only revoke awards due to malfeasance, not accident. The plan was to acknowledge the mistake, apologize for it, and put in place safeguards to make sure it didn't happen again.



> So, what do you call that? I call that misinformation to cover up a mistake. And that´s lying in my book.




I call it Zachary over-bleeping-reacting. If he was upset that it was taking too long to come out, he should have emailed the ENnies folks and said, "Hey, what's taking so damned long?" He jumped the gun, and so what was going to be an honestly, openly disclosed mistake (albeit one announced once proper policy was in place to make sure it didn't happen again) turned into a cluster-bleep.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 30, 2008)

Also, I know some people have concerns about the awards, and the appearance of impropriety. I'm not trying to be dismissive of your concerns. This thread has had a fair bit of unnecessary arguing, and I think the ENnies staff might do well to come out with an FAQ addressing each of the concerns that has been raised, point by point.


----------



## One Horse town (Sep 30, 2008)

jdrakeh said:


> That said, as a huge _fan_ of Epic since reviewing it I would have made this known and excused myself from judging the product in question — as Zachary should have (and possibly did, for all I know). He was also a big, unabashed, fan of Epic and one of its boosters on various different forums (notably RPGNet and theRPGsite, though).




That would pretty much make any judge that plays and reads games ineligible to judge a good wedge of any products sumitted wouldn't it? You can't be a writer or a publisher, now you can't be a fan? Might as well line up a bunch of publicans to judge, as the only d&d they are likely to know is drunk & disorderly. 





> The submitted product was a re-issue of previous books, better formatted for easy access and released in hardcover format via Lulu.




I thought so. So basically the game has been out in different iterations, which pretty much rubishes claims made upthread.


----------



## Mark Plemmons (Sep 30, 2008)

Just a suggestion that I'd like to see.

For future ENnie award ceremonies, I'd like to see each category have three prizes - a Gold, a Silver, and a "Judges' Choice" award.

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 30, 2008)

One Horse town said:


> That would pretty much make any judge that plays and reads games ineligible to judge a good wedge of any products sumitted wouldn't it? You can't be a writer or a publisher, now you can't be a fan? Might as well line up a bunch of publicans to judge, as the only d&d they are likely to know is drunk & disorderly.




That's mroe than a bit of an exaggeration of his point. There are times when someone is a particularly strong fanboy (or hater) of a product to the degree that he can no longer judge it responsibly. Whether or not he recuses himself from that particular deliberation, he should at least be upfront about it with the other judges and allow them to take the fore on deliberations.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 30, 2008)

Settembrini said:


> Fusangite made a fool of himself back at theRPGsite,




No, he really didn't, Sett. If he did, then you certainly are doing the same thing here.


----------



## One Horse town (Sep 30, 2008)

billd91 said:


> That's mroe than a bit of an exaggeration of his point. There are times when someone is a particularly strong fanboy (or hater) of a product to the degree that he can no longer judge it responsibly. Whether or not he recuses himself from that particular deliberation, he should at least be upfront about it with the other judges and allow them to take the fore on deliberations.




Yeah, it was. 

I trust that discourse of this sort happens on each panel and that folks can tell the difference between enthusiasm and bias.


----------



## GwydapLlew (Sep 30, 2008)

I'm amazed that so few people realize that the judge everyone is claiming to have tried to change the submission date was NOT trying something underhanded. Look at the logic in his statement:

1. The ENnies have a submission date.
2. Last year something was inadvertantly accepted past the submission date.
3. In his opinion, this means that the ENnies last year made a case for moving the submission date.
4. In his opinion, the submission date could be seen as the date that the late entry was accepted.

Nowhere did he rub his hands together, cackle about how eeeevil his plan was, or attempt to subvert a process that had already been handled. How do you expect a sitting judge to affect an award's eligibility from a prior year in which he was not a judge?


----------



## justanobody (Sep 30, 2008)

One Horse town said:


> Imagine a billboard poster for a film.
> 
> *King Kong*
> 
> ...




Did the film include the scene with him climbing the Empire State Building?

Does the state/city of New York profit from the film proceeds in any way?

Does the critic of NYT profit directly from ticket/DVD/merchandising sales of the film?

As long as the critic doesn't profit the other points are really moot, but it could be said that even the critic profits if the city/state profits in any way as the revenue from the movie being made in New York could help prevent tax hikes for that city/state.

I don't believe any movie critic especially after the idiot who review Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within claiming not only did he not like or play the video games, but then went to say that the movie was just like the video games. He shot himself in the foot with that one.

I think the most direct point would be does the critic get anything directly from a positive review? If he does, then it would be a conflict of interest or breach of ethics or whatever. Indirect profit form a review of something is harder to prove in most cases.

I neve really cared or knew about the ENnies prior to this thread, but like after finding the webbies and watching them every year, I think I will have to start watching the ENnies to see what they are all about.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 30, 2008)

GwydapLlew said:


> I'm amazed that so few people realize that the judge everyone is claiming to have tried to change the submission date was NOT trying something underhanded. Look at the logic in his statement:




What was suggested was (IMO) to simply alter the posted dates for last year, so that all material now showed the date as eligible where it didn't before. That is dishonest and a cover up. It was not implemented, so it's nothing huge in regards to the Ennies, but that's what it looks like to me.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Sep 30, 2008)

One Horse town said:


> Imagine a billboard poster for a film.
> 
> *King Kong*
> 
> ...




The difference is, they wouldn't normally hire a reviewer to judge a competition. It's like a jury, you want them to come in on an even playing field and learn about the stuff through the competition.

Of course, the Ennies are not a, er... "real" competition. It's a community niche award that isn't even universally accepted. The nature of the community inflates it's importance.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Sep 30, 2008)

jdrakeh said:


> I see no other proof of "lies" or anything that could, barring wishful thinking or creative exagerration, be offered as proof of a "lie". What I _do_ see is somebody with a long-standing, openly admittted, resentment against this site exploting the situation to promote the personal blog of a long since banned user who, himself, has a long-standing, openly admitted, resentment against this site that stems directly from aformentioned banning.




Exactly. The Pund-tard and his delusions are funny enough. That he actually has people who agree and parrot his nonsense is simply hilarious. That Zachary would associate himself with such people speaks volumes about his judgment.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 30, 2008)

For comparison I did some research on the Academy Awards, just to provide some contrast for the ENNies. I'm not saying that the ENNies are as big as the Academy Awards, but for the small world of gaming, and those who are involved in it and fans of it, I think it's just as big a thing for us (if maybe a bit less formal and irreverent). Although, I feel that the ENNies are much more fan oriented than the Oscars, and probably don't take itself as seriously as the Academy Awards do.

*AMPAS (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences):*
Members are chosen by nomination from current members of the Academy. They must be nominated by at least two current members of the Academy from their specific category (writers, actors, directors, etc). There are 15 categories plus a category of "Members at Large". The "Members at Large" do not fall within the other 15 categories (such as actors, directors, etc.) but are people who have contributed to the Movie industry. These can include (and have included) Lawyers and Critics (newspaper critics and television critics). However the names of members are not released. Those who have been nominated are sometimes released, but not always, and very few former members have been identified. The ones who are known are mostly just the original members and other "historical" relevent members. There are nearly 6,000 members (or more) at any given time. Movies to be considered are submitted by movie companies, and the members of the Academy vote on, and thereby choose, which movies, actors, etc. win the awards.

*Comments:* The Academy is made up of members who have acted in movies, directed movies, written movies, and have friends in said movies. They have endorsed movies, and even spent money on movies. They very much could even vote for their own movies. However, since the Academy has absolutely no transparency, who is voting and what they voted for will never be known outside of the Academy. However, the fact that there are over 6,000 voting members would probably mitigate any votes based on individual favoritism.


*The ENNies:*
The judges for the ENNies are chosen by votes cast by fans of the gaming industry. Members of the ENNies can be fans, writers, publishers, and critics, and bring their own preferences with them, but again they are chosen _by the fans_. Unlike the Academy, ENNies Judges do not vote on who wins, they decide the nominees and fans do the voting. The Judges and Staff of the ENNies are known and can be contacted by email, or discoursed with on any of the RPG forums, very unlike the Academy.

*Comments:* The ENNies are extraordinarily more transparent than the Oscars. The ENNies could even be said to be extraordinarily more fair than the Oscars since Judges and Winners are picked by Fan votes, not insiders fiat. If even the Academy Awards can't find a way to eliminate subjectivity and Judge preference/prejudice, I would say it's nigh impossible to expect the ENNies to attempt that very thing. Humans are just not capable of pure objectiveness. To expect this is to expect the impossible.


The only real problem I see, is that due to the ENNies normal transparency, Zachs posts, and his posting of emails, makes it appear that the ENNies were hiding something. But once the ENNies Staff and Judges responded to and explained what happened (there side of the story), I thought it became obvious they weren't hiding anything. I do feel that they made some minor mistakes, and compounded the impact of those mistakes with probably not the best management and PR responses. However, nothing that has been revealed, whether posts or emails, after hearing both sides of this, has convinced me that any intentional impropriety took place. The evidence just isn't there to support such allegations.

_However, could the ENNies be improved with some better PR?_ IMO, without a doubt. 

_Will the ENNies continue to improve and learn from their mistakes?_ I have no doubt they will. They appear to have already taken steps to avoid such mistakes in the future.

_Do I feel that the best products were awarded in the last ENNies Awards?_ Absolutely Yes, because *WE* picked them.

_Do I feel that the "ENNies Award Winner" tag on products is tainted or worthless?_ No, these products deserved to win, and are the best of their field because *WE* said so.


After everything posted in this thread I don't think anymore, that the ENNies problems are due to a lack of transparency, but more due to PR and false allegations. I am looking forward to next years ENNies. I'm sure they'll be fair and exciting (hopefully I can make it to GenCon some year and see them for myself).


----------



## Umbran (Sep 30, 2008)

CaptainChaos said:


> That Zachary would associate himself with such people speaks volumes about his judgment.





That is quite enough of impugning the character of individuals, thank you.

This debate should be held to the same standards as we try to hold elsewhere - that means you don't get to insult someone in order to try to make their arguments less strong.

This goes for everyone - address the content of the position, do not get personal.  If you feel a need, please discuss what is appropriate with a moderator.  Our addresses are at a post stickied to the top of the Meta forum.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 30, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> The difference is, they wouldn't normally hire a reviewer to judge a competition. It's like a jury, you want them to come in on an even playing field and learn about the stuff through the competition. . .




Actually that's not true, reviewers and critics do get chosen as judges for competitions. They are usually considered "experts" at seperating the best from the worst. It's actually unlike a jury in that you usually want experts in, or at least people knowledgeable about, the competitions subject. Watch any reality show and it's very obvious. Cooking competitions are usually judged by cooks and food critics. Music competitions are usually judged by music artists, producers, and reviewers/critics. It's actually uncommon for someone that knows nothing about a competition to be involved as a judge (_Americas Got Talent_ and _Simon Cowell_ of _Idol_ being the exceptions to the rule). ;-)


----------



## Settembrini (Sep 30, 2008)

RangerWickett said:


> 1. The plan was in place to announce the mistake and own up to it as soon as a PR director was put in place. Zachary jumped the gun ...




You know what?

I appreciate you take my concerns seriously, and answered thusly. 
But really, read the sentence yourself?

What yould YOU think, if you weren´t involved?
Say, a politician has done something improper, someone "blows the whistle", and he says: "I wanted to tell it anyway!"

Wouldn´t you roll your eyes?

But that´s just appearances, and you could be right that Zach acted prematurely, and everything would have been fine had he waited.

But, as a fan, voter & customer I have severe doubts about it. These doubts stem from two sources:

1) my *personal feeling*, built upon several online incidents, that there´s a core group of popular people on ENworld and CM that...well, let´s say they are like old boys. That´s the nicest I can put what I think of this group. And 95% of all people involved with the ENnies come from this group, it seems. Oh, and even if they aren´t elected or anything, they still get access to vital and important information, as I understand at dinners and such. Thusly I think the old boys would rather cover something up "for the greater good". The style of posting in the "evidence" section supports this, as well as shows (to me) a certain contempt for fans & authors ("kiddie table" etc.")

2) the history that is unveiled. The history of how former mistakes have been handled (link-submissions, non-reviewed entries). 

See, we can, and mostly should, not discuss 1), it´s pointless, but I wanted to be as open as possible. 
But 2) remains strong, so please ask yourselves the question:

Have former process mistakes been made public?

And if you add that to the "appearances" I treid to explain up-post, what would you as a non-involved person think?

Exactly:

[Clique] + former mistakes have been covered up to this day (and at least in one instance someone is proud of it!) + before Zach went public nothing was said.

I do not pretend I actually KNOW what is correct. But I damn sure know what it smells like.

So, there you have it, and I can assure you that´s how a number people will think. Take care, and I hope for us all the ENnies will come out stronger & with better communication in all directions out of it.


----------



## Qualidar (Sep 30, 2008)

How is it that this "clique" gets voted in by the entirety of the posters of ENWorld, RPGnet, and other, smaller, sites?

They must be very popular.

I understand you don't feel you belong. But people not liking you doesn't impair their ability to judge RPG products. From the flip side, that feeling might be impairing your ability to judge _those_ people fairly.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 30, 2008)

Settembrini said:


> 1) my *personal feeling*, built upon several online incidents, that there´s a core group of popular people on ENworld and CM that...well, let´s say they are like old boys. That´s the nicest I can put what I think of this group. And 95% of all people involved with the ENnies come from this group, it seems. Oh, and even if they aren´t elected or anything, they still get access to vital and important information, as I understand at dinners and such. Thusly I think the old boys would rather cover something up "for the greater good". The style of posting in the "evidence" section supports this, as well as shows (to me) a certain contempt for fans & authors ("kiddie table" etc.")




There are actually reasons they are like "old boys" and have a fair amount of influence over the ENnies that have nothing to do with being cliquish. They've been active a long time on these boards (less so on ENworld these days), people have seen them in a lot of discussions, and they put themselves forward as judge nominees. The very fact that they are as active as they are will draw attention, particularly from voters who don't know any of the rest of us from Adam. A familiar name, whom you may have agreed with in a discussion or two, will draw the votes for ENnies judge like a car wreck draws lawyers.

So what if they actively go around to various regional conventions to meet each other and chat, go to dinner, all as friends [and sometimes as enemies as far as I can tell]? They're very _active_ gamers. 
Is CM a cliquish board? Yes it is. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting an inside joke, quip, aside, or someone bringing up behavior from another thread that may be long done over there. But that's the nature of most boards, whether it's a clique here, on CM, or on Nisarg's board.


----------



## thud13x (Sep 30, 2008)

Settembrini said:


> You know what?
> What yould YOU think, if you weren´t involved?
> Say, a politician has done something improper, someone "blows the whistle", and he says: "I wanted to tell it anyway!"
> 
> ...




You do realize we are taking about GAMES, right?  Now, if this was a huge, corporate, profit-making undertaking, sure, I'd be concerned, but since it is a number of people who on their free time decided to give something back to a hobby of theirs, comparing it to dirty politicians is exagerated at best.

And since you seem to have such a hard time separating your personal feelings from a HOBBY, maybe you should just ignore the ENNIES and move on to something more substantial to be concerned about.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 1, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Actually that's not true, reviewers and critics do get chosen as judges for competitions. They are usually considered "experts" at seperating the best from the worst. It's actually unlike a jury in that you usually want experts in, or at least people knowledgeable about, the competitions subject.



There's a difference between wanting a person knowledgeable on the subject and folks that have already formed an opinion on a part of the submissions. A cook or food critic can judge a competition, but would avoid judging someone that they have already raved about elsewhere, in general.

The issue with the Ennies is that the judges have formed opinions on part of the material submitted, so they may love books 1-3, hate books 4-6, and have never seen books 7-12. It's too subjective of a process to really matter though, so not a big deal.


I think that's my issue with the Ennies. It takes itself way too seriously, as do those that follow it. It's like raving that you have the "third best RPG company!" when that company isn't even a blip on the radar of the business world, if that makes sense. The fact that they had to come to a mutual decision and appoint a PR person to notify the public that a product had missed the deadline, well, to me it's just laughable.


----------



## jdrakeh (Oct 1, 2008)

One Horse town said:


> That would pretty much make any judge that plays and reads games ineligible to judge a good wedge of any products sumitted wouldn't it?




No. There's a difference between liking a game, being a critic, and being an official booster for it. These are all very different things. You can like a game without being connected to its creators and you can critique a game without liking it, but you can't head up the fan movement without exercising some seriosu bias. Which is pretty much what Zachary did. 

Zachary engaged in active promotion for Epic at various RPG sites leading up to and following its intiial release (as did I _after_ reviewing it). In fact, I first met up with Zachary on the Epic RPG forums, where he seemed to have been involved with the game at some level prior to its initial release (in what capacity I cannot say, it's simply the impression that I got). 



> I thought so. So basically the game has been out in different iterations, which pretty much rubishes claims made upthread.




Well, kind of. Except that Zachary heavily promoted _both_ versions of the game in the capacity of 'overly enthusiastic fan'. Normally, I wouldn't be down on fandom in this regard, but here it skirts the edge of conflict.


----------



## Psion (Oct 1, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> There's a difference between wanting a person knowledgeable on the subject and folks that have already formed an opinion on a part of the submissions.




Wait, what?

Why would "already forming an opinion" be an issue? It's not like they formed that opinion in a vacuum. So long as they are receptive to new products, already liking something is not a very credible objection, in and of itself, to ones' judging ability.

And an impractical one to boot. How many would be judges out there do you know _don't already like some games_?


----------



## Crothian (Oct 1, 2008)

Psion said:


> How many would be judges out there do you know _don't already like some games_?





You mean besides Diaglo?


----------



## jdrakeh (Oct 1, 2008)

Crothian said:


> You mean besides Diaglo?




I think that OD&D might still qualify as "some game"


----------



## Thorm (Oct 1, 2008)

jdrakeh said:


> No. There's a difference between liking a game, being a critic, and being an official booster for it.... In fact, I first met up with Zachary on the Epic RPG forums, where he seemed to have been involved with the game at some level prior to its initial release (in what capacity I cannot say, it's simply the impression that I got).




For clarity's sake, Zachary H. was not involved with the game at any level prior to its initial release. 

He also wasn't involved in the creation of the Game Manual, though we took some of the critical suggestions from his original review into account, as well as suggestions from your reviews, James, , as well as forum posts, as well as anything else useful from anyone interested enough to pick us out in the tightly packed, everyone-in-everyone else's undershirt mosh pit that is internet discussion of small press rpg publishers.

We also cribbed some text from some intarweb reviews of previous interations of our game for the back cover.

He don't work for us in a paid or unpaid, official or unofficial or even in a bikini chained to Jabba capacity.  I think we do see eye to eye on some game design concepts, and disagree on some others.  We're both fans of John Wick's crazy-revenge-fest _Houses of the Blooded_.  To my eternal sadness, after taking a look at his blog I suspect he prefers Palladium and Rifts and Greyhawk and Aces and Eights and d6 and a bunch of other games and products to Epic.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 1, 2008)

Psion said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> Why would "already forming an opinion" be an issue? It's not like they formed that opinion in a vacuum. So long as they are receptive to new products, already liking something is not a very credible objection, in and of itself, to ones' judging ability.




Read my second line then, and perhaps you'll see where I said it doesn't matter. How do you judge if someone is "receptive" to a new product, that they can give it the same fair treatment as their first exposure to it?

You can't, and it doesn't matter because RPG products are so varied and opinions so person that there is no way you can not form biased opinions on them. Understand that these are fan awards for a subsection of a small community and then maybe "wait, what?" wouldn't be your reaction.



> And an impractical one to boot. How many would be judges out there do you know _don't already like some games_?




this is not about all games everywhere, this is about releases within a set time period. Perhaps the ennies submissions should be year round and when they finales arrive, the top rated books are put up for vote.

Or maybe the ennies should just die, so we don't have these arguements all the time.


----------



## Master of the Game (Oct 2, 2008)

Mark Plemmons said:


> Just a suggestion that I'd like to see.
> 
> For future ENnie award ceremonies, I'd like to see each category have three prizes - a Gold, a Silver, and a "Judges' Choice" award.
> 
> Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.




From what I've seen during my time associated with the ENnies every year a judges' choice award or two is considered, then thrown out.  I think the general idea is that the nomination serves as the judges' choice, and there may be a general fear that going any further might give the idea that our votes mean more than those of others.


----------



## Master of the Game (Oct 2, 2008)

Settembrini said:


> You know what?
> 
> I appreciate you take my concerns seriously, and answered thusly.
> But really, read the sentence yourself?



sett, I totally take your concerns seriously because that's how we get better.  No one see the same from the inside looking out as the outside looking in.  I think the very fact that these conversations were going on shows that the personnel of the ENnies take complaints very seriously.  Otherwise there would have been no discussion of allowing fees instead of CDs at all.  From our perspective the CDs work very well indeed.




> What yould YOU think, if you weren´t involved?
> Say, a politician has done something improper, someone "blows the whistle", and he says: "I wanted to tell it anyway!"
> 
> Wouldn´t you roll your eyes?




You certainly have a point here, but I feel like the emails themselves give enough evidence that they actually were trying to figure out how to deal with it.  I know it seems like it was long, but it's important to remember two things.  First, there were new judges that were still trying to acclimatize and learn the process, and second, it was just after GenCon.  I don't know if anyone else has post-GenCon burnout the way I have, but I never feel like jumping right on anything after I get back, and I never had to spend the month leading up to it running around at the last minute trying to prepare a huge event like the ENnies.  It wouldn't surprise me if everyone needed a break and some time to think.



> But that´s just appearances, and you could be right that Zach acted prematurely, and everything would have been fine had he waited.
> 
> But, as a fan, voter & customer I have severe doubts about it. These doubts stem from two sources:
> 
> 1) my *personal feeling*, built upon several online incidents, that there´s a core group of popular people on ENworld and CM that...well, let´s say they are like old boys. That´s the nicest I can put what I think of this group. And 95% of all people involved with the ENnies come from this group, it seems. Oh, and even if they aren´t elected or anything, they still get access to vital and important information, as I understand at dinners and such. Thusly I think the old boys would rather cover something up "for the greater good". The style of posting in the "evidence" section supports this, as well as shows (to me) a certain contempt for fans & authors ("kiddie table" etc.")




If the people at the ENnies are mostly friends it's likely from a mutual respect from working with one another for years and going through some pretty tough trials.  You don't have any friends from work that you'd have dinner with after a few years working side by side and talking every day?

I could see why you worry, but I think the fact that the judge pool in the past few years has been very fluid is plenty of proof that no one is pushing an agenda or anything.  When it comes to the awards themselves no one is more powerful than the judges, and year after year there's always some old veteran that gets phased out and some new person with new ideas that gets phased in.  That's how I got in, that's how Zach got in, and I'd venture we're not the only ones.  Who would have expected Teflon Billy to get voted out after _years_ as the heart of the judging staff?

Other than that I don't know what other answer to give you.  The "kiddy table" comment was obviously not meant in a derogatory way as has been explained over and over again, and I feel like, if you're going to keep holding on to that there is nothing anyone is going to say that will change your mind on that issue.  That doesn't invalidate your other points, but I really feel like it's useless to keep going over that one again and again.



> 2) the history that is unveiled. The history of how former mistakes have been handled (link-submissions, non-reviewed entries).




I hope that the links issue has been already discussed enough.  Certainly everyone has burned a CD that didn't turn out right at some point?  Should a product be invalidated because one judge got stuck with a technical glitch?  I don't know anything about it, it was after my time, but in case anyone wants to vote against me for saying so in the future, I think it was a good idea and within the spirit of the rules.  Please let that help to serve as a guide for whether or not I get your vote when I run again next year.

If products aren't getting a full review however, I think that is pretty unacceptable, but that's a judge problem, not an ENie problem.  We get a couple hundred products to review each year.  If you can't do it, don't run.



> See, we can, and mostly should, not discuss 1), it´s pointless, but I wanted to be as open as possible.




Your passionate and embedded in you position, and there's nothing wrong with discussing it.  But maybe we should all move on from saying the same thing over and over again in a half-dozen threads.  Myself included.  I think it's making us all cranky 



> But 2) remains strong, so please ask yourselves the question:
> 
> Have former process mistakes been made public?




I think that they really have honestly.  This isn't exactly the first thread around here about things that the ENnies have done wrong, and I think history has shown us that the concerns are listened to and addressed.

People complained my year about what happened with Fear the Boot.  The next year Confessions of a Part Time Sorceress (I apologize if I'm wrong, but I'm not familiar and working from second-hand information here) said something presumably less controversial, but in the same vein.  They were handled more lightly by a whole new panel of judges hot on the heels of the earlier controversy, and people became upset.  However it does show that they listened, and it does show that they were trying, and they did so publicly.

Last year people complained about submitting products on CD, so this year they were discussing other options.  Now everyone is upset that a fee was discussed, but once again it shows that they were listening and trying to find a fix.  Was it public yet?  No.  It was never finalized, but clearly it would have been eventually, or else no one would know to pay the fee.



> And if you add that to the "appearances" I treid to explain up-post, what would you as a non-involved person think?




I don't know.  I can't claim to be uninvolved, but I can say that Zach's experience was not _my_ experience, and I'd guess it wasn't his last year either, since he chose to run again.  Though I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for him.



> Exactly:
> 
> [Clique] + former mistakes have been covered up to this day (and at least in one instance someone is proud of it!) + before Zach went public nothing was said.
> 
> ...




Thank you.  You know, I know people are going to get on your case because they disagree with you.  I do too.  But I do apreciate that you really sem to be doing what you think is right, and not just trying to cause trouble, and I find that admirable.

I still think you're wrong though. 

Let me ask you a question.  You seem to take it very seriously that members of the ENnies discuss important topics with their friends because it is "clique-ish" or what have you.  Especially the fact that Denise and fusangite talked about Zach's public resignation over dinner.

What exactly are your thoughts then on the fact that Zach shared these emails with several people before making them public?  At least two people I know of on therpgsite claim Zach sent the emails to a "group" of people before posting them.  Pundit also says he had discussed these problem and offer advice for quite some time.

Is that more acceptable, and why?

I promise I'm not trying to start an argument.  I honestly want to know where you stand on the issue, and why one behavior may be (though I'm not saying it is) more clique-ish in your mind than the other.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Oct 2, 2008)

Good on you, Master of the Game, for trying to be reasonble. It's a shame you're probably wasting your breath. People who communicate by spewing and frothing don't want reasonable debate; they want to spew and froth.


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 2, 2008)

CaptainChaos said:


> Good on you, Master of the Game, for trying to be reasonble. It's a shame you're probably wasting your breath. People who communicate by spewing and frothing don't want reasonable debate; they want to spew and froth.




_...they want to spew and froth._

You mean like what you just posted?

Look, I don't agree with most of what Settembrini said either, but how is posting something like this helping things. Don't you think posts like this are just going to keep the flamewar going? This was completely unnecessary.


----------

