# ICE and the ENnies



## Rasyr (Feb 4, 2007)

This post is to announce the ICE will *NOT* be participating in the ENnies this year.

It boils down to a couple of main reasons why:

1) The ENnies have begun emulating the Origins Awards. One of the primary reasons that many fans lost faith in the Origins Awards was the inclusion of products in categories where they did not seem to fit. This happened last year with the Shackled City Adventure Path being included in Best Setting as well as Best Module. So long as this can happen, ICE cannot support the ENnies. The ENnies needs clear and concise rules regarding submissions to prevent this from happening in the future.

I am sorry, but IMO those categories, that match up with sales categories, should not allow cross-entries. Products should be limited to the one that best matches the way they are marketed. The other categories, the ones like best catography and best artwork, can have products be listed in multiple categories as they refer to an aspect of the product not the whole product like the marketing categories of Best Adventure Module and Best Campaign Setting and so forth.

2) The ENnies are not an industry wide award, they are a d20 award that happens to allow other games to be looked at. There is no way to avoid this, not so long as the ENnies refuse to sever their ties with EN World. They pull their judges from here, they do their voting here, the judges hold their discussions here. By tying themselves to EN World they are ensuring an ingrained, though likely unintentional, bias towards d20.

There is nothing stopping the ENnies from setting up their own forums (there are some excellent and robust free forum software out there that they could use), but they elect not to. I have been told for several years running now that the ENnies is seeking to become independent from EN World, and ICE supported the ENnies because of that declared intent of independence, and yet I still see absolutely no movement in that direction.

The Gaming Report blurb spent more time talking about voting than about how a person could apply to become an ENnies judge and even that part was hidden from the front page blurb, even though the announcement title was "Judge Selection Begins". Nor did the link actually take people to the page where it gives infor about judge selection. It takes them to the ENnies home page, and there is nothing on it indicating where to go from there....

Add to this, that only site on which I have seen anything regarding ENnies judge selection, by those in charge of the ENnies, is this site (last year it was at least mentioned on rgp.net and had a thread dedicated to it). Apparently the ENnies don't want to be an independent from EN World.

While I am sure that I could nit-pick and find more reasons, the above are more than enough for ICE to no long participate in the ENnies, at least not until some changes are made to the overall system.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 4, 2007)

Moved to publishers.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Feb 4, 2007)

I tend to agree with your first point, Rasyr.   The 'technical' awards (art, production quality, etc), ought to be open to any product, even ones entered in other categories.  The 'best in class' ones ought to be more strict.  I'm not sure whether it would be better for the publisher to submit for a category or have the judges decide, thougjh.

I disagree with your second point.  I think the less ENWorld and d20 oriented the awards become, the less value and meaning they have.  I fear it will just lead to system wars, popularity contests, and attempts by different camps to sway the results.  Not that I'm naive enough to think it doesn't happen a little already, but it would get far worse.

The more diverse and generic the process, the less relevance the awards have to me.


----------



## Rasyr (Feb 4, 2007)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> The more diverse and generic the process, the less relevance the awards have to me.




The operative words in that sentence are "to me". If the ENnies want to remain a d20-centric awards, then they have nothing wrong in regards to my second point.

However, I have been told, in the past, that the ENnies want to be more accepted by a wider audience, and that means being accepted by the fans of other system. 

The awards currently have an ingrained bias against anything that is not d20. Nothing wrong with that except that it does not fit the image that I have been led to believe that the ENnies want to present. And it limits them to being JUST a d20 award, and all other companies should forget about entering anything.

The following is a quote form the ENnies site...


> The Gen Con EN World RPG Awards (the "ENnies") are an annual fan-based celebration of excellence in tabletop roleplaying gaming. The ENnies give game designers, writers and artists the recognition they deserve. It is a peoples' choice award, and the final winners are voted upon by the gaming public at EN World.




Those last 3 words... If not for them, they ENnies COULD be an industry wide award like I was told that they wanted to be. But those last 3 words specify that the judging is done at a site that is intrinsically tied to D&D and d20. Because of those last 3 words, companies that produce non-d20 games should not, in my opinion, participate in the ENnies because those words mean that unless you are a d20 related product, you are not going to get fair consideration.


----------



## Khairn (Feb 4, 2007)

Just a few random thoughts ...

As I followed the ENnies and watched them grow over the years, I always found it odd that any non-D20 company would ever participate.

-judges are chosen from members of the EN boards and is usually decided based on involvement in this community...
-EN World is a solely D20 site, without any discussion that isn't based on a D20 game ...
-the fractured nature of the gaming community based on system would seem to indicate that players who primarily play those other systems (Hero, Harnmaster, ICE etc) would have no real reason to become involved on the EN boards which leads to their opinions and votes being marginalized

It can be argued that many of the the gamers on these boards play other systems and are "in touch" with the hobby outside of D20, but that kind of well-rounded gaming expertise is hardly a prerequisite.

I never followed the Origin Awards so I cant comment on Rasyr opinion that the ENnies are going down that same path, but the idea of limiting a particular product to its primary category does seem like a fair rule.

I guess that if the ENnies are trying to be an "independent" award for overall gaming excellence that they have a long way to go.  I'd be cool with the idea of stating that its a D20 award vehicle ... period.  

Afterall, that's what it is.


----------



## seasong (Feb 4, 2007)

Speaking as someone with a deep love for and vested interest in non-d20 systems . . .

Leave the ENnies as a d20-biased award system. Seriously. The wider the range of products that are allowed in, the less and less relevant the awards as a whole will become to any given individual.

Currently, the ENnies are meaningless to GURPS players. So what? If we start having GURPS products make it into the ENnies regularly, one or two awards will be meaningless to everyone else . . . and the rest of the awards will _still_ be meaningless to the GURPS players.

Let Origins try to please everyone and fail. I like the ENnies because they have a particular audience, and they do a pretty good job of pleasing and informing that audience. They are, to my mind, exactly narrow enough to be a good set of awards.

I agree with (1), though. For much the same reasons as I disagree with (2)!


----------



## Rasyr (Feb 4, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> I guess that if the ENnies are trying to be an "independent" award for overall gaming excellence that they have a long way to go.  I'd be cool with the idea of stating that its a D20 award vehicle ... period.
> 
> Afterall, that's what it is.




If the ENnies were intended to be JUST a d20 awards system then why would the folks involved in the ENnies ask for entries from those companies that are not producing d20 products..


----------



## Treebore (Feb 4, 2007)

Shadowrun got the top award last year, and very deservedly so. 4E is darn good.

If we are afraid of fragmenting things then the ENNIE's Board and Judges should do the fragmenting themselves. Meaning break it apart by having categories that don't have systems stepping on each others feet.

The real question is how much should it be fragmented? Should we fragment it simply into d20 and non-d20? Or are we going to have to fragment it even further? Say into "D10 systems", "percentile systems", "d6 systems", etc...?

How much does it have to be fragmented until the majority of people will feel it is fair?

Then the obvious question is, "How much can it be fragmented before it becomes a meaningless award?"

Meaning that if we fragment the awards categories too much, competition will be diminished, if not totally eliminated, making the awards empty and meaningless.

So how should the categories be divided to make publishers happy, but still be useful and meaningful to the fans and the industry?


----------



## Rasyr (Feb 4, 2007)

No, what it boils down to is that if the ENnies want to be an industry awards for all RPGs in the industry, then they need to include the entire industry, not just the d20 portion of it, and that goes for how they select their judges, how they advertise, what boards they advertise on, etc. The entire process.

If that is not the case, then they need to exclude non-d20 products, and remain tied to EN World like the currently are.

However, what they cannot do is to claim to represent RPGs in the industry while  remaining explicitly and intricately tied to a single system. It throws the entirety of the processes involved into a murky light (no matter how honest and honorable they are).

It is also part of the reason that ICE has decided to stop participating.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 4, 2007)

Now to comment on the Judges. I don't remember every judge in the past, but I do know that most of them do not love d20 3E exclusively. Several fo them, every year, were fans of other systems as well as d20.

So I am sure those judges that I remember fought for a fair assessment of games that were not d20, and after talking to several of them this past GenCon they won their fight for fairness.

I know of two other judge nominees so far this year. I believe they are fair, and that they are not "D20 3E Rules all" fanboys. I know I am not a fanboy either. Not even of my favorite system, Castles and Crusades. Like the other judge nominess I realize no one system is the "best".

Plus I play several other systems besides C&C. This past year alone we have played EPIC rpg, HARN, L5R 3E (excellent improvements, BTW), Shadowrun 4E, M&M 2E, and my SIEGE version of MegaTraveller.

So if your concerned about Judges being biased vote for those of us who play multiple systems. Shouldn't be a hard thing to do. Especially if all the various communities get together and vote to make sure "fan boy" judges are not voted in.

Plus the 5 judges only nominate the top 5 products of each category. The fans have to make sure their favorite wins top honors, and I think Shadowrun winning top honors last year proves that ENWorld/3E fans do not have the influence on the voting that many seem to think they have.

That, or the ENWorld fan voters are much fairer than they are being given credit for.

Either way, withdrawing from the ENNIEs is not the answer. Voicing your concerns and getting them addressed is the first way to go. Withdrawal is for when the ENNIEs Board convinces you they aren't giving you fair consideration.

Withdrawing without giving them the chance to address your concerns before they even have their new judges is unfair, not to mention a bit less than professional.

April is the deadline for product submission eleigibility. Tell the ENNIE Board your concerns, then when they have their Judge, they can address all submitted concerns and issues, and see what kind of ways they can be addressed. 

Once they announce their final categories and definitions and guidelines under which the 2007 nominations will be judged, that is when you decide how fair or unfair the ENNIE Awards are going to be for your product, and others. That is when you decide to boycott, or not.


----------



## Khairn (Feb 4, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> If the ENnies were intended to be JUST a d20 awards system then why would the folks involved in the ENnies ask for entries from those companies that are not producing d20 products..




I believe the folks who run the ENnies want to include every game system.  But the reality is there is an inherent bias towards D20 in how the awards are managed.  I personally enjoy the ENnies, but feel that they need to clearly state what they actually are ... an award program for excellence in D20 products.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 4, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> No, what it boils down to is that if the ENnies want to be an industry awards for all RPGs in the industry, then they need to include the entire industry, not just the d20 portion of it, and that goes for how they select their judges, how they advertise, what boards they advertise on, etc. The entire process.
> 
> If that is not the case, then they need to exclude non-d20 products, and remain tied to EN World like the currently are.
> 
> ...




It seems to me that you are not aware of part of why I posted about the ENNIES to your board.

The ENNIEs now have their own website and their own forums. They are making a concerted effort to get all gaming communities involved.

They are trying to do exactly waht you say you want them to do.

So backing out and refusing to support their diversification and broadening of their categories and efforts to be as inclusive as possible is not helpful.


----------



## Dextra (Feb 4, 2007)

There will always be those who can find some reason against participating, and that's fine.  And though I'm tempted to just let people vent their frustrations, I feel I need to address some of the (fallacious) points brought up.  

*The Shackled City Issue:*
Last year it was determined that a product could compete in categories based on its content, not on how it was primarily marketed.  In other words, a big book wouldn't be pigeon-holed on what it was supposed to be no matter how much or how excellent other material it included.  So yes, Shackled City was considered in the Campaign and Adventure categories because in the eyes of the judges, it contained both campaign setting and adventure material.  The fans voted, and it won. 

Whether we will allow such a thing again this year has yet to be determined.  I suspect that we may limit each entry to one type of category in which it may compete, but that's not a done deal.  That's up to the Board and the newly-elected crop of judges.

*Judge Nominations*
As for the judges, we've announced the nominations being opened up on RPGNet, The Forge, and Gaming Report thus far as well as EN World.  As a matter of fact, The Forge had discussion going on the topic before EN World did!  I posted it as news on RPGNet and it's the top News item at the moment.  And as soon as their boards were live, I started a thread on RPGNet- not my problem if the thread got buried in all the other chatter there.

And Tim's right, I didn't go into huge detail on my release to Gaming Report.  It's a press release, not a novel.  And I only linked to the front page of the ENnies site.  But jeepers, people, click on "This Year" or "Voting" and it had the details. 

We've got the news in the pipe in a few other feeds that haven't surfaced yet.  Is it my fault that other outlets haven't been as quick to jump on the news as The Forge and EN World have been?

*Separation from EN World*
There have been plenty of steps taken in that direction.  
-Yes, EN World donates forums and voting booth coding, and the voting will take place using the EN World server, but the portal will be an ENnies one, not an "EN World" branded one, just like last year.  
-The ENnies site is not hosted on EN World's servers.

But remember, so long as EN World and Gen Con pay the bills, their names get to be on everything, there's no way to escape that.  

*The d20 Issue*
People are still harping on this?  I have to say, I'm getting sooooooooo tired of that argument.  Look at the results for the past few years.  Considering:

The amount of d20 vs. other systems material published during the year
The amount of d20 vs. other systems material submitted
The numbers speak for themselves.  There is a disproportionate representation of non-d20 system games in the nominees and winners.  This is not a d20 award any more, and hasn't been for years.  
There's been a push to eliminate the Best d20 category, but I've resisted it because I think we still need to remind ourselves of the beginnings of the Awards since we've moved so far away from being a d20 system award.
It's way too late to say things like "leave the ENnies a d20 system award".  They stopped being that years ago.   

*Finally*
At the end of the day, the ENnies are a fan-based RPG award for all systems.  The fans spoke with their votes and in ever-increasing numbers, so I know we're on the right track.  Also, we have ever-increasing participation from multitudes of systems and publishers from small to big, so I know we're on the right track.


----------



## Rasyr (Feb 4, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> It seems to me that you are not aware of part of why I posted about the ENNIES to your board.
> 
> The ENNIEs now have their own website and their own forums. They are making a concerted effort to get all gaming communities involved.




They have had their own website for a couple of years now. Haven't seen any forums on them though, and I looked over the site quite well before making my post here. I went to http://www.ennieawards.com/index.html and looked again. Still no sign of forums dedicated to the ENnies, sorry.

Last year they had a thread on rpg.net about judge selection. This year, there wasn't any (again, I looked BEFORE I posted).



			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> I
> They are trying to do exactly waht you say you want them to do.
> 
> So backing out and refusing to support their diversification and broadening of their categories and efforts to be as inclusive as possible is not helpful.




This is about more than just my not seeing any effort on the part of the ENnies to become an industry award rather than just a d20 awards with minor industry colorization.

This is also about unclear and quite frankly, arbritrary rules that allow the judges to move products into and out of categories for their own purposes, the lack of transparency of the processes (what are the judging points of each category, how is the voting done, etc..), etc... 

Changing the rules between the time the judges are elected and the time that final submissions are done is not the answer either (like was mentioned to be elsewhere). There is no time for a publisher to study them or review them or do anything along those lines. 

Now next year, perhaps ICE might participate again if the rules changes that are made seem equitable and fair and if the ENnies Awards are more independent as well. Also, so long as no more rule changes are intended to be performed at the last minute.

Personally, I don't think that it is equitable or fair that an oversized module can be dumped into a category that was supposedly judging the entire product just because a judge thought it had enough setting elements to be in both.  If this last was the case, then *what is the percentage of setting required?* Cause that means that just about every module can then be reviewed under setting as well if it contained enough setting elements in it to cross that magical percentage threshold.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 4, 2007)

OK, what she (Dextra) said. The ENNIEs are obviously trying to become a very strong and viable, as well as "independent" award. Active support and participation on the part of the various RPG companies would, I think, obviously be the best way to help carry the whole process forward.

Obviously the ENNIE Awards may never make everyone happy, but it will be even less likely for them to do so if companies refuse to participate and communicate in helping the awards become better.

So even if you, and any other companies, don't wish to submit for any awards, at the very least keep communicating so they can address all concerns and have time to think of solutions.

Plus, with good communication, I think "at the last minute" is plenty of time for us to create a good judging process for this year. After all, these decisions need to be made for those elected as judges to do their judging, irregardless.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 4, 2007)

Here is the ENNIE's post made by Denise on RPGnet on the second of February. It was on the 4th page of the general forum.

RPGnet ENNIE's Judge thread


----------



## Rasyr (Feb 4, 2007)

Dextra said:
			
		

> *Separation from EN World*
> There have been plenty of steps taken in that direction.
> -Yes, EN World donates forums and voting booth coding, and the voting will take place using the EN World server, but the portal will be an ENnies one, not an "EN World" branded one, just like last year.
> -The ENnies site is not hosted on EN World's servers.
> ...




To put it bluntly, so long as the ENnies are tied to EN World, they will ALWAYS BE BIASED towards d20 games (no matter how many are submitted) because the vast majority of members are d20 players and fans first and foremost, quality of the game becomes a secondary issue. When you have such a huge dedicated pool of voters for a single system being the core voters for your awards system, it isn't surprising when products for that system win, it is only surprising when something else wins....

The bias is there, whether you choose to recognize/accept it or not. And so long as the ENnies are tied to these forums, it won't go away. 

As for Shackled City - I ask again, what is the MAGIC percentage of setting to module that allows a product to be listed in both? Give me a number (it can be approximate). Put it in the rules and codify it.

By putting Shackled City into the Setting category, the ENnies committed the EXACT same sort of mistake that made the Origin Awards lose all of their credibility over the years (note: the OAs took a several years to lose their credibility, and this was the first such mistake I saw in the ENnies, but now that it has happened once, it will happen again, especially if they refuse to even recognize it as a mistake). 

Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it...

As for the d20 issue. I am not making a single comment on the volume or products published or on the number in any given category. Those things are to be expected. And they are not even a part of what I have been talking about.

However, the fact that you refuse to remove the awards extremely close ties to one of the largest d20 voting pools on the planet IS an issue. It generates an automatic bias against any non-d20 product that happens to enter. When every single judge is primarily a d20 player, it generates an automatic bias unless the judges are extremely scrupulous (luckily for the ENnies, they have been). 

Unless and until the judges come from a wider pool, and the voting comes from a much more diverse pool (70% EN Worlders, 30% from other sites does not make for a diverse enough voting pool), there is no way that the ENnies can be considered anything but biased towards d20.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with being a d20 award and there is nothing wrong with being an independent award for all RPGs, however, so long as the ENnies remain so closely tied to EN World, they will also be just a d20 Award, with a slight bit of flavor from other systems.

Treebore, I fully intend to keep on communicating, but it is hard to do so when the other party refuses to listen because they think you are talking about one thing (see Dextra's points about the number of d20 products above) when you are talking about something else (i.e. I am NOT talking about products entered, I am talking about the innate bias of the majority of the voting pool because the awards remain tied to a d20 fan site).

Treebore - I have been involved in the Origins Awards before, and trust me, last minute rules NEVER work like you think they will. I won't even consider participating in a contest that is deciding the rules at the last minute. That is a non-starter for me. Once severely burned, three times shy.....

Just think about it for a minute... "The ENnies are awards for the entire RPG industry, but the voting is done solely on a d20 fan site, rather than on the Awards' own website"

Treebore - I stand corrected on the rpg.net post. I never thought to look past the third page.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 4, 2007)

Well then explain to me/us how you feel this way when a very non-d20 product took top honors last year? Shadowrun is about d6 dice pools, d20's aren't even used. So if your fears are as substantiated as you feel they are, explain/show me why they are with Shadowrun's huge wins last year.

I felt that VII by White Wolf should have beat out some of the winners in a couple of categories last year, but I chalk that up simply to it being a fan based award. Plus I felt that way without even having bought it, just from reading posts and looking through it at the store. Obviously the ENNIEs Judges agreed with me up to a point last year, since it was nominated in several categories. Just the fans felt different.

Now you might reply that is due to ENWorld favoritism, but then again you would have to convince me about Shadowrun first.

HARP is a very good game. It has certain rules I don't like, but every system, even my favorites, get house ruled by me when I run them. After having run it for for less than 12 hours this year I think it is a very great system and I really like the feel of how magic works. 

So I have to ask why HARP didn't get better reception last year, but you have to admit the competition was darn good competition. Tough decisions had to be made. Its the whole reason "Honorable Mentions" were even created last year, as well as the "Judges Special Award" category. The judges said, in many posts, and at the awards themselves, there was a lot of really good stuff available last year that they had to eliminate to get only 5 nominee's per category. 

Anyways, I look forward to seeing your thoughts about Shadowrun.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 4, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> As for Shackled City - I ask again, what is the MAGIC percentage of setting to module that allows a product to be listed in both? Give me a number (it can be approximate). Put it in the rules and codify it.




There isn't one as I'm sure you've guessed by now.


----------



## GwydapLlew (Feb 4, 2007)

Y'know, I love me some D&D. I love me some d20. I also love me some White Wolf, Shadowrun. In Nomine, GURPS, Star Wars (d6), Paranoia, Earthdawn, RIFTS, In Spectres, and other games.

Just because someone posts here does not mean that they only play (or even predominantly play) d20. Heck, diaglo can't stand d20, and he was a judge last year.

I don't see the issue. This seems like sound and fury, signifying nothing.


----------



## Dextra (Feb 4, 2007)

*To put it bluntly...*

_taken to private discussion_


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Feb 4, 2007)

Both Robin Laws and Mike Mearls have some interesting comments on what went wrong with the Origins awards:



> Is there a technical term, maybe from geology or ecology or art preservation, to describe a situation where any new energy introduced into a system merely damages it further? Because that’s where the OAs are at. They’ve been tinkered with so much that they are beyond repair. Even the best imaginable set of changes to the awards, meant in all good conscience to repair the credibility damage they’ve taken over the last few years, would only harm them further. Stick a fork in them. They’re done.
> 
> How did this happen? The most obvious analysis is that they’ve been done by conflicting agendas within its body of so-called stakeholders. Do they award popular acclaim, or creative merit? Focus on a few awards, or award ‘em in a ton of categories, Grammy style? Such debates are inherently destructive to the legitimacy of the awards, when every participant envisions himself as a potential winner of a hypothetical trophy, if only the rules are jiggered to make them fair.
> 
> ...




-- Robin Laws, The Origins Awards Can’t Be Fixed

Mike Mearls makes a similar point:



> 1. If only a few people run the awards, the group needs to be insulated from the people who can win the awards. Currently, the people organizing the (Origins) awards can also win them. This is terrible. Awards are a zero sum game. Everyone involved in putting together the awards wants to win, but they also want everyone else to lose. That is obviously a horrible environment for cooperation, trust, and understanding to thrive.
> 
> Past "discussions" (if one can call a shrieking cat fight a discussion) over the direction of the awards seemed to center on the utter inability of the Dancey and Lindross factions to trust each other. Both sides were convinced that the other was going to destroy GAMA as we knew it. Of course, they were both wrong: it took the two groups working together to effectively destroy the awards, but that's another story.
> 
> Sadly, we'll never actually see this happen. The RPG industry is too small to support a body of professional critics. We're stuck asking people who want to win awards to also organize them.




And later, regarding the ENnies:



> What about the ENnies? The ENnies are sort of funny. When I worked in the d20 industry, and still today when I read publishers' posts, I always detected a faint whiff of fear whenever people talk about the ENnies. It was like, "These guys are the only ones giving out awards that people might care about. I really want to pitch a nutty over the process and run rampant like I did with the Origins awards (either in public or in private), but if I do that I might not be able to win. On the other hand, unless I seize control and tell these guys how to run the awards, I might not win. What am I supposed to do?"
> 
> I think "industry" people are all quietly freaking the hell out over the ENnies, because they can't seize control of them without looking like a pack of hyenas. They can sort of make suggestions, and I'm sure they bitch endlessly over them in private, but in truth the ENnies are beyond the industry's control. That's good, because we need a firewall between the awards and those who win them.




-- Mike Mearls, Effective RPG Awards


----------



## Morrus (Feb 4, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> To put it bluntly, so long as the ENnies are tied to EN World, they will ALWAYS BE BIASED towards d20 games (no matter how many are submitted) because the vast majority of members are d20 players and fans first and foremost, quality of the game becomes a secondary issue. When you have such a huge dedicated pool of voters for a single system being the core voters for your awards system, it isn't surprising when products for that system win, it is only surprising when something else wins....
> 
> The bias is there, whether you choose to recognize/accept it or not. And so long as the ENnies are tied to these forums, it won't go away.




I'm afraid EN World's awards program will always be associated with EN World.  Sorry to hear we won't be hearing from ICE in the future.


----------



## Psion (Feb 4, 2007)

seasong said:
			
		

> Leave the ENnies as a d20-biased award system. Seriously. The wider the range of products that are allowed in, the less and less relevant the awards as a whole will become to any given individual.




I think you are 180 degrees out here.

In order for the awards to have any meaning, you have to have more entrants than winners.  The third party d20 field has shrunk down to near nothing, and I suspect that WotC will continue to exclude themselves from the running. All that would be left is small press publishers hoping to spread the word. And while that's not bad and occasionally it works, it's not a big enough field to sift out a credible set of "best of the industry" awards.



> Currently, the ENnies are meaningless to GURPS players.




Then the GURPS players -- and Steve Jackson Games -- are missing out. Over the last two years, the likes of Fanpro, Hero, and Margaret Weiss Productions have participated and had good showings.


----------



## Pramas (Feb 5, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think you are 180 degrees out here.
> 
> In order for the awards to have any meaning, you have to have more entrants than winners.  The third party d20 field has shrunk down to near nothing, and I suspect that WotC will continue to exclude themselves from the running. All that would be left is small press publishers hoping to spread the word. And while that's not bad and occasionally it works, it's not a big enough field to sift out a credible set of "best of the industry" awards.




That was my first thought on reading Tim's post. Why tie the awards exclusively to a shrinking segment of the market?

It is important to learn lessons about what happened with the Origins Awards. Unfortunately, any discussion of the OAs always brings out an endless litany of ill-informed bs by people who know nothing of their actual history and difficulties.


----------



## seasong (Feb 5, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think you are 180 degrees out here.



And I may be.

And I apologize for saying something dumb. I _do_ realize that what I said is no longer possible - that the ENnies I once used to help me sift through the horde of d20 products (and spot things I'd missed earlier in the year) no longer exist. Today, it's a _very_ interesting popularity contest, and one that occasionally points out broad trends.

But when I saw the original post, I jumped into early 2004's mindset so fast my own head spun .



> Then the GURPS players -- and Steve Jackson Games -- are missing out. Over the last two years, the likes of Fanpro, Hero, and Margaret Weiss Productions have participated and had good showings.



I'm expressing my opinions, not company policy. In all likelihood, as the ENnies become more popular (maybe even this year - I don't have time to keep track of our marketing), Steve Jackson Games will start submitting to the awards. From the _company_ point of view, such awards are cheap advertising to non-GURPS players who might not have heard of us previously. Any philosophical issues with d20/non-d20 are completely irrelevant - let us take an award for practically free, and we will.

My opinions stem from me-as-gamer. In the past, I treated the ENnies as a shopping list - today, not so much. It's something I'm a little sad about, but not something I should have mouthed off about.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 5, 2007)

I think the ENnies are okay, but then again I co-wrote a game that won Best Writing last year

Anyway, the ENnies have plenty of industry/commercial ties to them, so Mike's observations about the awards being "independent" don't really make any sense. The problem is that we curently have a number of awards that do not reflect the reality of the hobby. The ENnies is the closest to a good general award. 

The OAs do a lot of things badly, mixing an award system for RPGs with ones for other games that don't have the same audience or market size. Somebody's always going to get screwed in an awards system where wargaming, CCGs and RPGs are side by side. Of course, there were also certain people that greatly harmed the integrity of the awards.

CCGs, War/board games and RPGs need separate awards. Wargames need the exposure afforded by specializes awards. CCGs don't need RPG hangers-on and RPGs are a broad enough category to get their own treatment. A good award should probably have one peer award category to recognize work that may have passed under the radar otherwise, but it needn't dominate the whole thing.

Back to the ENnies, some of the category listings were nonsensical last year. Many RPGs go with the core + robust supplement, and the Ennies folds them in with other kinds of supplements (except when it doesn't due to the subjective influence of people who are supposed to be representing fandom but may have a production credit or two under their belts). Mage and Shackled City had no business being in the same category, for instance.

If I was the boss of all of you, this is what I'd take RPGs out of the OAs. I'd make the ENnies the only RPG awards and add a "product of the year" peer award. For everything else, I'd get rid of the judges who kind-sorta have industry credits, no matter how tenuous or ancient they may be.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 5, 2007)

seasong said:
			
		

> In the past, I treated the ENnies as a shopping list - today, not so much. It's something I'm a little sad about, but not something I should have mouthed off about.




I think it can still be a shopping list only instead of a shopping list of d20 books it is a shopping list of RPG books.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 5, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think the ENnies are okay, but then again I co-wrote a game that won Best Writing last year
> 
> Anyway, the ENnies have plenty of industry/commercial ties to them, so Mike's observations about the awards being "independent" don't really make any sense. The problem is that we curently have a number of awards that do not reflect the reality of the hobby. The ENnies is the closest to a good general award.
> 
> ...





Could you clarify what you mean by industry credits? As far as I remember none of the judges have ever worked in the industry. Or is this an issue going back to the 2001 and 2002 ENNIE's?


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 5, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Could you clarify what you mean by industry credits? As far as I remember none of the judges have ever worked in the industry. Or is this an issue going back to the 2001 and 2002 ENNIE's?




Of the 2006 judges, one is listed as having a Pyramid review credit, while another mentions a GURPS Talislanta project that earned a kill fee.


----------



## Dextra (Feb 5, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Could you clarify what you mean by industry credits? As far as I remember none of the judges have ever worked in the industry. Or is this an issue going back to the 2001 and 2002 ENNIE's?




It's no secret that ages ago Teflon Billy wrote some product, Joe Kushner has freelanced on occasion, and PirateCat wrote an early d20 module (PS, PKitty, where's the sequel?!).  And I guess some could claim that anyone who acts as a reviewer and receives free product has an industry connection.  

I've worked hard to ensure that one basic concept is followed when it comes to judge eligibility: 

These are fan awards.  

Professionals, freelancers, publishers, etc. can not be judges.  
This also helps maintain impartiality and fairness.  

But what it comes down to is, if the fans selecting the judges think that someone with long past writing credits is whom they wish representing them on the panel, then we should respect their wishes.


----------



## Menexenus (Feb 5, 2007)

For what it is worth (i.e., not much), I say keep the Ennies d20-centric.  I agree with those who have suggested that expanding the awards to cover all gaming systems dilutes their relevance and unintentionally promotes "platform" popularity contests.

I think the Ennies' expansion to include non-d20 categories is an unfortunate by-product of linking the awards to GenCon (which seemed cool at first, but which was probably a mistake).

ENWorld was designed as a clearinghouse for information about D&D and d20.  I say keep the Ennies true to their origins!


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 5, 2007)

Dextra said:
			
		

> It's no secret that ages ago Teflon Billy wrote some product, Joe Kushner has freelanced on occasion, and PirateCat wrote an early d20 module (PS, PKitty, where's the sequel?!).  And I guess some could claim that anyone who acts as a reviewer and receives free product has an industry connection.




Receiving review comps and receiving  payment are two entirely different things.



> Professionals, freelancers, publishers, etc. can not be judges.
> This also helps maintain impartiality and fairness.




Well, obviously they can, because they are. In it's current form, the ENnies are not strictly by and for the fans. They're by fans and occasional industry people. Certainly, the proportion of people with industry credits to fans in the administration of the ENnies is much greater than the proportion in the general hobby, so it obviously has an industry bias.



> But what it comes down to is, if the fans selecting the judges think that someone with long past writing credits is whom they wish representing them on the panel, then we should respect their wishes.




Then they aren't fan awards. They're industry awards with a deceptive pretense.

The judge nomination form makes it easy for me to, for example, proxy through somebody I know who happens to be taking a year off from freelancing. The clause disqualifying people who have "relationships" with RPG publishers is ridiculously short and looks like it was designed to provide a veneer of fannishness without disqualifying interested industry parties. 

Hell, I think that there's probably more relevant industry influence over the ENnies than the OAs at this point. Some Academy members haven't been active rpg creatives in ages or have permanently left behind producing for the hobby.

I'd love the ENnies to be fan awards, but they aren't.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 5, 2007)

I think it isn't a point really worth arguing. The judges just nominate what they collectively believe to be the 5 best products in a category. The fans, who can be anyone, including industry professionals and publishers and freelancers are the ones who determine the top one in each category.

So the real question is are the judges trustworthy? I say they are likely to be more trustworthy than many and not as much as some. Plus there is no real way to get better unless you want to start paying for background checks, which still assures us of nothing because people in the government have Top Secret Clearances and the best back ground checks our country knows how to do, and too many of them have turned around and betrayed our country.

So I think we just need to accept the weaknesses of the system (unless you can think of an achieveable fix) and have fun with it.

As for the fans, who have the "real power" to select the best, how do you keep those fans from being publishers, writers, artists, and other RPG industry professionals? You can't. 

So accept the weaknesses and just hope you make it through all the hoops to the top spot. Which is what everyone does.

You don't like the fact that so many ENWorlders get to vote? Nothing is keeping you from encouraging your fan base to sign up on ENWorld and vote for their favorites, is it?

 That is why I first started coming here. I was initially a big fan of Necromancer and Goodman, still am, really. They asked us on their messageboards to go vote for our favorites. So I signed up and did. Here I am 4 or 5 years later now trying to become a Judge.

All I can say to you, and anyone else who considers voting for me, that I will judge all the products as fairly as I am capable of doing as a human being. Just like I am confident that every past judge has done their best to do. As well as everyone who puts their name into the hat this year.

If you can't live with that then you might as well as ignore every awards ceremony from the Presidential elections, to the Academy Awards on down. All of them require you to trust the judges and the voters.

To expect this, or any awards program, to be perfect, and perfectly fair, is an impossible and unfair expectation. We have to take its flaws into account, fix what we can, and run with it.

The best we can do is pay attention, look for things that can be improved upon, and accept the imperfections that cannot be fixed.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 5, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> I think it isn't a point really worth arguing. The judges just nominate what they collectively believe to be the 5 best products in a category. The fans, who can be anyone, including industry professionals and publishers and freelancers are the ones who determine the top one in each category.




This is obviously at odds with the intent of people who talk about how the awards are "fan-run." If you accept the definition of "fan" above -- a definition that goes at odds with previous discussions and definitions of fandom in every other arena, making it dubious to use at face value -- you make the whole distinction meaningless.



> So the real question is are the judges trustworthy? I say they are likely to be more trustworthy than many and not as much as some. Plus there is no real way to get better unless you want to start paying for background checks, which still assures us of nothing because people in the government have Top Secret Clearances and the best back ground checks our country knows how to do, and too many of them have turned around and betrayed our country.




It has nothing to do with assuming honesty or dishonesty. If it's a fan award, it should be a fan award. Not a kinda-sorta-fan award that in practice is handed around to people associated with a handful of for-profit companies, including the one that happens to run this site. For me, this means that the ENnies are associated with companies that are direct competitors for the same market segment I target.

The point is not to remove intentional bias. The point is to make the awards as sincere gesture of fan appreciation as practically possible. It doesn't look as sincere when non-fans (by the common definition used in actual fandom instead of a overly vague definition) are a prominent part of the mix.



> As for the fans, who have the "real power" to select the best, how do you keep those fans from being publishers, writers, artists, and other RPG industry professionals? You can't.




Sure you can. You can do it by mandating that no judge have any paid credit in the production of a commercial RPG or have recieved payment from a company for any service, with the exception of complimentary product for review.

There, that was easy. Now why isn't it in the rules for a fan award? It ain't rocket science, folks.



> So accept the weaknesses and just hope you make it through all the hoops to the top spot. Which is what everyone does.




Obviously, everyone is not doing it. Tim Dugger isn't, and that's why this thread exists. If the awards process has aliented ICE, that's no good, really.



> If you can't live with that then you might as well as ignore every awards ceremony from the Presidential elections, to the Academy Awards on down. All of them require you to trust the judges and the voters.




Reductio ad absurdum. You are saying that since you can't make awards totally fair, you may as well just give up. This doesn't make any sense. Having actual fans instead of kinda-sorta-industry folks judge a supposed fan award does make sense? 



> To expect this, or any awards program, to be perfect, and perfectly fair, is an impossible and unfair expectation. We have to take its flaws into account, fix what we can, and run with it.




Nobody's saying anything about perfection. I'm talking about basic credibility.

If people absolutely cannot do without paid industry people judging, then the ENnies should create a category separate from the fan awards. Otherwise, the ENnies should be an actual fan award.


----------



## BSF (Feb 5, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> It has nothing to do with assuming honesty or dishonesty. If it's a fan award, it should be a fan award. Not a kinda-sorta-fan award that in practice is handed around to people associated with a handful of for-profit companies, including the one that happens to run this site. For me, this means that the ENnies are associated with companies that are direct competitors for the same market segment I target.



In years past EN Publishing has not been eligible for ENnie awards.  

Or maybe you are referring to the fact that the ENnies are associated with EN World and Gen Con?  OK, by that definition aren't you kind of saying that once an award has gotten notable enough to actually be noticed it is no longer a 'fan' award?  

Or maybe I am just missing something?  I admit I am preoccupied mentally at the moment.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Sure you can. You can do it by mandating that no judge have any paid credit in the production of a commercial RPG or have recieved payment from a company for any service, with the exception of complimentary product for review.
> 
> There, that was easy. Now why isn't it in the rules for a fan award? It ain't rocket science, folks.




OK, so if you have ever done paid work with anything the relates to RPGs, then you can't judge right?  Anything, anytime, ever.  

Yet, you would be OK with somebody that did something that was not for pay?  Like, say, playtesting?  I did a little playtesting back in 2006. It wasn't for pay, except I did get a copy of the rules out of it.  And hey, I got a copy of one of the supplements before it was released too.  So is that paid work?  

According to the guidelines as posted, I am not eligible to be a judge this year.  Though if the guidelines follow history, I might be eligible next year.  However, would you assert that I should be permanently ineligible?  

What about all the playtesters for 3.0?  Eligible or not eligible?  Playtesters for other systems?  Other RPGs?  Are they too professional?

*shrug*  I tend to think that disclosure is the best way to handle it.  Then let the voting for the judges decide who the 'fans' want to pare down the list.  Of course, I tend to vote for judges with an odd sense of what I want to see.  I want to see people whose opinion I respect going through that list.   Preferrably one person that tends to have tastes similar to mine, and another who has tastes dissimilar to mine.  Then a few people that I may agree or disagree with, but who can communicate effectively enough that I know why I agree or disagree.  Then I look at the list of products the judges think are in the top and I vote on what I know in that list.  Sometimes there are products I have never even looked at on the list and I wonder what I missed when it was released.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 5, 2007)

BSF said:
			
		

> In years past EN Publishing has not been eligible for ENnie awards.
> 
> Or maybe you are referring to the fact that the ENnies are associated with EN World and en Con?  OK, by that definition aren't you kind of saying that once an award has gotten notable enough to actually be noticed it is no longer a 'fan' award?




The awards are closely associated with ENWorld, which is partnered with the EN Publishing brand.



> OK, so if you have ever done paid work with anything the relates to RPGs, then you can't judge right?  Anything, anytime, ever.




Sounds good. If it really is too strenuous, I'd say three years is a minimum and five sounds about right. One year is way too short.



> Yet, you would be OK with somebody that did something that was not for pay?  Like, say, playtesting?  I did a little playtesting back in 2006. It wasn't for pay, except I did get a copy of the rules out of it.  And hey, I got a copy of one of the supplements before it was released too.  So is that paid work?




Being on a comp list isn't payment, even in exchange for playtesting. If it needs to be clarified, then we can certainly say that playtesters who receive copies of what they playtested don't count.

(There's an alternate solution I can think of that would be fair but make lots of people angry, and that's to divide the RPG market into amatuer, pro and semipro categories with set thresholds for payment, and disallow people who've done pro or semipro work to get involved. The disadvantage is that a lot of people who thinking of themselves as being industry creatives would be counted as amatuers or semipro workers by any reasonable standard, and this would offend a lot of people in the penny or two a word bracket.)



> According to the guidelines as posted, I am not eligible to be a judge this year.  Though if the guidelines follow history, I might be eligible next year.  However, would you assert that I should be permanently ineligible?




Maybe. Nobody put a gun to your head or mine to work on an RPG product. I'd be happy if neither of us could ever be involved in the awards in any official capacity.

One thing I would like companies to be involved in, on the other hand, is awards promotion. Disinterest in promoting the OAs certainly didn't help it any.



> What about all the playtesters for 3.0?  Eligible or not eligible?  Playtesters for other systems?  Other RPGs?  Are they too professional?




Depends on whether they were paid money.


----------



## BSF (Feb 5, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Being on a comp list isn't payment, even in exchange for playtesting. If it needs to be clarified, then we can certainly say that playtesters who receive copies of what they playtested don't count.
> 
> (There's an alternate solution I can think of that would be fair but make lots of people angry, and that's to divide the RPG market into amatuer, pro and semipro categories with set thresholds for payment, and disallow people who've done pro or semipro work to get involved. The disadvantage is that a lot of people who thinking of themselves as being industry creatives would be counted as amatuers or semipro workers by any reasonable standard, and this would offend a lot of people in the penny or two a word bracket.)




See, based on this I can't entirely agree with you.  Some playtesting feedback is useful to gauge whether the game plays as intended.  Other playtesting feedback borders on game design.  In either case though, somebody that is interested in a product to playtest for it might be biased toward that product.  

Are we trying to protect against bias or industry ties?  

The disclosure is the important thing.  Of course, I look at this from the perspective of a gamer, not a publisher.  As a gamer, I want to hear why somebody might be suited to wade through a ton of material and narrow down the list to something managable.  Somebody that has at least as strong an interest in my hobby as I do looks good.  Somebody that has the skills to actually put together a product _might_ be of interest as well.  Of course, they might not.  

But if you are addressing the perspective of what a publisher is looking for, then I concede that judges without any industry ties might look a bit more appealing.  You seem to be approaching it from the perspective of paid work and I can see where that is an easy delineater.  However it doesn't work quite that easily in this niche industry.

There are a lot of people involved with RPGs doing unpaid work.  The fact that they are unpaid doesn't make them any less, or any more, biased than somebody that was paid to do work.  Especially if that work was done years ago.  



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Maybe. Nobody put a gun to your head or mine to work on an RPG product. I'd be happy if neither of us could ever be involved in the awards in any official capacity.




*shrug*  I am an easy example this year.  I'm not sure I am that interested in ever being a judge.  As much as I would like to give back to the community somehow, there are several ways I can do it.  Ways that are probably much easier and hassle free than being an ENnies judge.  



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> One thing I would like companies to be involved in, on the other hand, is awards promotion. Disinterest in promoting the OAs certainly didn't help it any.




No arguement on that!  It's a strange little industry in a lot of ways.  By the time a product has made it to the Ennies ceremony it has probably made it through it's best selling periods.  It would be nice to think that any sort of award would help revive sales and move backstock.  But from that I have heard over the last few years that just is not a reality with the current market.  Well, except in the PDF market.  The PDF market has an 'evergreen' quality where older stock items keep selling if they are of good quality.  

Maybe an interesting twist would be to have the publishers associated with PDF outlets to push for an ENnies category. Then all ENnie winners could put those pruducts into that category as well.  *shrug*  Not sure it would help with sales, but maybe it would?


----------



## diaglo (Feb 5, 2007)

having been a member of Eric Noah's board and then migrating to EN Wurld for a long time, i guess it is no secret that my hat of d02 know no limits.

in fact, i got tired of seeing the same old same old so that is why i ran last year as a judge. and my campaign promise was that my hat of d02 know no limits.

from the inside i got to see more of how the wheels churned.

if you have any doubts do like i did. run to become a judge.


----------



## Rasyr (Feb 5, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> There isn't one as I'm sure you've guessed by now.




And that is exactly one of the points I was trying to make. There NEEDS to be one. There needs to be codification, not "rule by whim".



			
				Dextra said:
			
		

> _taken to private discussion_
> 
> Last edited by Dextra : Yesterday at 05:19 PM. Reason: Not worth it




Not worth it? Somebody makes a complaint and first you are dismissive and then stop conversation all together? To me, that just says that you have no intention on taking anybody's complaints or concerns seriously. Nice message to send to the publishers that you are hoping to attract.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> I'm afraid EN World's awards program will always be associated with EN World.  Sorry to hear we won't be hearing from ICE in the future.




And I am sorry to hear that. You have no idea how sorry. I actually like the ENnies very much and think that they could be a great Award, but not so long as they are ruled by whim (as opposed to codified rules) and not so long as they refuse to break ties with a fan site dedicated to one single system.



			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> I think it isn't a point really worth arguing. The judges just nominate what they collectively believe to be the 5 best products in a category. The fans, who can be anyone, including industry professionals and publishers and freelancers are the ones who determine the top one in each category.




But the judges also get to move products from one category to another on whim. Not based on any set of codified rules that somebody can look at and say "well, those are fair rules", but solely on their discretion. And if one judge gets the notion that an adventure book should also be listed under Best Setting, and if he can convince (or even fast talk) enough of the other judges, then it gets moved over. And does it take a majority (3 judges) or a unanimous vote (all 5) to move the product into a new category? Or does it just take 1 judge? The point here is that we don't know, and we cannot look at a pre-written set of rules and say, "oh! there is the answer".

In the past, I thought that the cats like Best Adventure and Best Setting were judging the entire product, not just a portion of it, apparently I was wrong, but did not know it because the rules were not codified. My concern here is that participants be treated fairly. And unfortunately, there is no way to ensure that because there is no set of rules that participants can look at and see HOW things are done.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is boils down to is that ICE is not participating in the awards this year, period. That decision won't change.

In order for ICE to participate in the future, there needs to be some changes. 

The changes requested were basically for clarification and codification of the rules, and a request that certain categories be considered exclusive in regards to certain other categories. *This done to maintain fairness to ALL the participants, not just those that produce huge books that cross-category boundaries.* 

Think about that.. Fairness for all or fairness for just those few companies that can make huge products that might fit in multiple categories? Last year, we saw that the fairness extended to the large companies, and the resulting fairness to the small companies? The answer given was basically "Too Bad, deal with it"

I also asked for the ENnies to do what they said that they wanted to do, which is to stand up on their own. Apparently, they consider that this does not mean divorcing themselves from one of the largest fan sites on the internet. They refuse to see that remaining tied to this fan-site *can cause* unintentional bias among their judges and among the pool of available voters. (In my opinion, these sorts of things can only make the ENnies better (and please notice that none of the request would have a direct impact upon any single participant).

They apparently either refuse to see (or do see and don't care) that they will ALWAYS be considered the d20 awards so long as they remain tied to a d20 fan site. Several posters on THIS thread have pretty much proven that. 

And instead of engaging me in conversation, I was treated dismissively (first in a post meant to brush me off, and then again in one where it was edited and the edit note said "not worth it", and then told outright that the ENnies will never be separated from EN World.

That makes me sad. It also means to me that perhaps I should just give up trying to talk to the ENnies board, and should maybe take my arguments to the publishers themselves. At this point though, I am a bit undecided.....


----------



## Morrus (Feb 5, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> And I am sorry to hear that. You have no idea how sorry. I actually like the ENnies very much and think that they could be a great Award, but not so long as they are ruled by whim (as opposed to codified rules) and not so long as they refuse to break ties with a fan site dedicated to one single system.
> 
> And instead of engaging me in conversation, I was treated dismissively (first in a post meant to brush me off, and then again in one where it was edited and the edit note said "not worth it", and then told outright that the ENnies will never be separated from EN World.




I'm not sure what you want us to say, frankly, Rasyr.  You don't like what the ENnies are and have declared your intention not to be involved.  Fair enough.  It's been said.  Let's move on, eh?  

The ENnies are EN World's awards.  That's the whole point of them.  They're called the *EN*nies.  They're owned by me.    They are what they are.  I may as well say to you "I'll buy ICE's products as soon as they're no longer associated with ICE".

I'm not trying to argue with you.  I'm not trying to persuade you to participate.   They're explicity not designed to be influenced by the industry (by which I mean the publishers and, by extension, you).  The moment they change to meet publishers' needs (or wants) is the moment they become useless.

As far as I can tell, you're saying "Change them to be the way I want them, or I won't enter".  We _can _ only have one response to that (which, generally, is to let it go and carry on organising the awards, rather than endlessly debate them with someone who's declared they're not even going to be involved!) 



> It also means to me that perhaps I should just give up trying to talk to the ENnies board, and should maybe take my arguments to the publishers themselves.




Feel free!  We have absolutely no objection to the ENnies being discussed amongst the publishers and other industry types.  In fact, I encourage it!


----------



## Rasyr (Feb 5, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> The ENnies are EN World's awards.  That's the whole point of them.  They're called the *EN*nies.  They're owned by me.    They are what they are.  I may as well say to you "I'll buy ICE's products as soon as they're no longer associated with ICE".




And what they are is a "D20 Award with some other systems for flavor" not a Fan-Based Industry Award. 

I am not asking for any sort of special treatment, I am asking for rules to be codified and for those rules to be fair to ALL. Things that should be suggested by common sense.

If you want them to remain tied to EN World, fine, but don't expect the ENnies to be considered an industry wide award when the site they are tied to has a distinct d20 bias to it. THAT has been part of what I was saying.

That and the wanting the rules to be fair for all, which they currently aren't. Correction, from past experience they aren't, as I don't know about right now because the rules are not codified to any great degree.

I am not saying "do it my way or else" I am asking for the ENnies to do it in a way that is fair to all.

If you don't want to be fair to all participants, that is certainly YOUR choice, but my conscious cannot stand by and let the ENnies claim to be fair when they aren't (or at least appear to not be fair....)


----------



## Treebore (Feb 5, 2007)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Hopefully things will one day give you reason to change your mind.

Like has been indicated, the ENNIEs cannot be allowed to go the way of Origins Awards. 

Plus I do not see things your way in how the nominees are selected and the winner determined. The only thing I can really agree with is codified guidleines for the judges to decide which product is best and having categories be clearly defined for one product (meaning the Adventure Path question).

Maybe a Adventure/Setting category. This is simply because a product so big to be able to be both is probably going to be more impressive than something designed to be solely a Adventure or just a setting.  Then what are the ENNIE's to do in the years when only one such product is produced and submitted like last year? Give it a Gold by default?

Not an easy question with an easy answer that would make everyone happy.


----------



## Rasyr (Feb 5, 2007)

I asked for two main things...

1) Rules to be codified. I also asked for clear definition (which is actually part of codifying the rules). It is unfair to the participants if they do not know the rules by which they will be judged (and saying "the best" doesn't tell anybody squat). Last year the debacle with Shackled City highlighted the "rule by whim" problem that is inherent in the ENnies. Categories need to be clearly defined. 

As others have agreed in earlier posts, I also think that certain categories should be exclusive to other categories. However, those in charge of the ENnies apparently disagree, to the point of ignoring what some of their fans are saying. A fan-based award that ignores what the fans are saying? If they were really interested, then they would have opened dialog on the topic to get an even wider viewpoint and to see what the opinion of the fans are on this topic, rather than just blowing it off and saying that people voting for the awards says that they are heading in the right direction.

I never denied that they are heading in the right direction, only that last year, they did something that veers from that direction and that if they don't fix it, they won't stay going in the right direction. Only to be told to take a hike (though not in those exact words).

2) Make the ENnies stand on their own. Morrus has already stated his full intention to never separate the ENnies from EN World. Since EN World is the world's largest d20 fan site that makes the ENnies the awards of the world's largest d20 fan site, NOT a fan-based industry award. 

Instead of treating everybody the same, d20 fans who are registered at EN World get special treatment. Fans of other systems are FORCED to visit the world's largest d20 fan site in order to vote on the ENnies.

I am trying to point out that the ENnies cannot claim to be more than a *d20 Fan* award so long as it treats fans of other systems differently by forcing them to come here. 

I asked that the ENnies processes be performed on the ENnies website. You know make EVERYBODY go to the same place, not show favortism by making "EVERYBODY BUT MY MEMBERS" go to a site that is dedicated to a rival system. 

By moving the judge selection and voting processes to the ENnies website, what does that do? It inconveniences the EN World Members is what it does. You don't care about inconveniencing people who want to support other systems, only those who visit your site.

Somebody also madea statement about getting publishers to support the ENnies. Do you really think that Steve Jackson or White Wolf or ICE  or any other non-d20 publisher is going to fully support something fully tied to the world's largest fan site of a competitor?

You need a wake up call. 

I am asking for there to be fairness, not special treatment. 

Asking for fairness is not the same as saying 



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> I may as well say to you "I'll buy ICE's products as soon as they're no longer associated with ICE".



It is more like saying "I'll buy ICE's products as soon as I am not forced to wade through ICE's website to get to them"

And you know what? We don't force you to come to the ICE website, so why should ICE fans be forced to come to a d20 website to deal with the ENnies? To the ENnies website, yes. To a website that is devoted to a competitor, no.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 5, 2007)

> And you know what? We don't force you to come to the ICE website, so why should ICE fans be forced to come to a d20 website to deal with the ENnies? To the ENnies website, yes. To a website that is devoted to a competitor, no.




You've lost me.  The website's at www.ennieawards.com, not enworld.org.  Am I missing something here, because I honestly don't understand your point?



> As others have agreed in earlier posts, I also think that certain categories should be exclusive to other categories. However, those in charge of the ENnies apparently disagree, to the point of ignoring what some of their fans are saying.




Who disagrees?  The policy makers each year are elected.  They haven't been elected yet - or even nominated.  If you want my *personal* opinion (which is not what will decide how things work this year), I tend to agree about SCAP.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 5, 2007)

BSF said:
			
		

> See, based on this I can't entirely agree with you.  Some playtesting feedback is useful to gauge whether the game plays as intended.  Other playtesting feedback borders on game design.  In either case though, somebody that is interested in a product to playtest for it might be biased toward that product.




I think we can allow people to recuse themselves in such margnal cases. There aren't many situations where the playtesters substantially redesign a game. They may make comments that cause a redesign or suggest systems, but I speak from experience when I say there's a difference between a guy saying "Why don't you try X" and a designer rolling X a million times on a dice simulator, comparing it with other methods and then turning that into parsable text.

Again, you can't make it perfect, but you can certainly make it a lot less screwy.



> Are we trying to protect against bias or industry ties?




I simply believe that the ENnies should be legitimate fan awards. Right now they aren't really any such thing. Frankly, if there are so few RPG fans who aren't affiliated with product production and marketing, RPGs are screwed. Fortunately, I think there are plenty of people who should fit the bill of being fans and nothing but fans. If the ENnies can't organize itself to find these people, there's a problem.



> The disclosure is the important thing.  Of course, I look at this from the perspective of a gamer, not a publisher.  As a gamer, I want to hear why somebody might be suited to wade through a ton of material and narrow down the list to something managable.  Somebody that has at least as strong an interest in my hobby as I do looks good.  Somebody that has the skills to actually put together a product _might_ be of interest as well.  Of course, they might not.




The charm of the ENnies is that it's a fan award. Another award dominated by some industry faction, no matter how minor, is kind of unnecessary.



> But if you are addressing the perspective of what a publisher is looking for, then I concede that judges without any industry ties might look a bit more appealing.  You seem to be approaching it from the perspective of paid work and I can see where that is an easy delineater.  However it doesn't work quite that easily in this niche industry.
> 
> There are a lot of people involved with RPGs doing unpaid work.  The fact that they are unpaid doesn't make them any less, or any more, biased than somebody that was paid to do work.  Especially if that work was done years ago.




Everybody's biased; that's not the point. But it does make a difference if you have even a tenuous commercial interest in the mix. Plus, where the hell's the charm in having some freelancer judge? If I want to know what a freelance game writer or designer thinks I'll email some of 'em. I really do want to get an idea of how a small group of consumers/fans mentally structures and assesses the hobby. I already know about how industry people think about the hobby because nobody'll shut up about it.

Money really does make a difference. I know you have marginal cases of playtesting for pay and work for comps, but I think the awards can deal with making these decisions as long as they're guided by something that says, "No industry work for at least 3-5 years," instead oif the current system of there being no guidelines and it obviously not working, as it clearly doesn't when 2 of the 06 fan judges have industry credits.



> No arguement on that!  It's a strange little industry in a lot of ways.  By the time a product has made it to the Ennies ceremony it has probably made it through it's best selling periods.  It would be nice to think that any sort of award would help revive sales and move backstock.  But from that I have heard over the last few years that just is not a reality with the current market.  Well, except in the PDF market.  The PDF market has an 'evergreen' quality where older stock items keep selling if they are of good quality.
> 
> Maybe an interesting twist would be to have the publishers associated with PDF outlets to push for an ENnies category. Then all ENnie winners could put those pruducts into that category as well.  *shrug*  Not sure it would help with sales, but maybe it would?




Not a bad idea.


----------



## Dextra (Feb 5, 2007)

*Here's your hat, what's your hurry?*

Tim,

I try not to respond to trolls, and since you obviously have such a hate on for all things d20 and anything remotely associated with them yet still post here, I confess I'd relegated you to troll status.  It's not worth rehashing everything with you here.  My email address is not a secret, if you want to continue this discussion with me in private, fine.  But I'm not going to help add fuel to your fire here. 

I do care what you and others have to say, and have made many changes over the years, including moving the ENnies off EN World and opening the voting and judgehood to non EN Worlders.  Over the past six months we've been moving towards better-defiined categories, and making certain that certain products cannot cross too many categories.  If you had taken the time to ASK rather than start posturing about how you were going to take your bat and ball and go home, you would know these things.

There's not much more that we can or will do, and quite frankly, it's not my responsibility to please the publishers.  

denise@ennieawards.com


----------



## Rasyr (Feb 5, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> You've lost me.  The website's at www.ennieawards.com, not enworld.org.  Am I missing something here, because I honestly don't understand your point?




Yes, there is an ENnies website, but what takes place there? Not the selection of the judges, not the voting on the ENnies. The only thing the site is used for is to display information after the fact.

All meaningful discussion regarding the selection of judges is happening here on EN World, the world's largest d20 fan site. White Wolf fans, ICE fans, Palladium fans, etc.. are not going to want to come here to discuss what you want folks to consider as an industry-wide fan-based award.

If I gave you your own forum (and made you its moderator) over on the ICE website (or even on my own personal webiste) to use for all ENnies discussions, how many d20 fans do you think would go there to discuss the ENnies?

Not many, simply because they won't want to go to the website of a competitor of their favorite system. The same reasoning applies to the fans of the other systems. They don't want to come here. I have already had to slightly reprimand one poster on the ICE forums for being a bit too vehement in his comments in the thread that Treebore started over there.

Now, if the ENnies website has their own set of forums, and the the voting took place on THE ENnies website (as opposed to on the EN World website), then that would be fair to ALL potential voters, and not treating one group with favoritism. Those who want to be involved in discussing the ENnies could do so, without worry of being bashed by the d20 community for supporting another system or for posting their views.

Additionally, by tying things to these forums you are specifically limiting the voting pool to those you have not previously banned from the forums. Yes, I saw that the blurb for this year says that registration on the forums is not required, and that is a major step forward, but do the bans from the forums still affect who can access the voting site? I*f so*, then that is another way in which the ENnies are being unfair - as they would not be allowing everybody the chance to vote.

Yes, you own the ENnies, and you have the right to do with them what you want. I am just trying to point out that what you are currently doing with them is NOT FAIR to all, and that if you WANT the ENnies to be accepted industry-wide, then you have to make changes to accomplish that goal. As long as you keep them tied to a d20 fan site, they will be the d20 fan awards and nothing more, no matter how many other systems are entered...



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> Who disagrees?  The policy makers each year are elected.  They haven't been elected yet - or even nominated.  If you want my *personal* opinion (which is not what will decide how things work this year), I tend to agree about SCAP.




Somehow or another I missed the following the first time I read Dextra's post. Then again, it was edited after I had read it (and opened it into a new window for replying to the bottom portion), so I don't know if I only missed it or it was added during the edit . Since I didn't quote that portion in my response, I just don't know. 

But I was under the impression that the Board set the policy, not the judges. That seems like another problem area. 



			
				Dextra said:
			
		

> Whether we will allow such a thing again this year has yet to be determined.  I suspect that we may limit each entry to one type of category in which it may compete, but that's not a done deal.  That's up to the Board and the newly-elected crop of judges.




But this brings up the issue of not having a codified set of rules to start from. Participants have no idea what the rules are from year to year. There should be a solid, written set of rules that participants can count on (and that is what I am trying to stress). Not a set of rules that can drastically change from year to year depending upon which judges are elected.

If the ENnies had a codified set of rules and perhaps a set of guidelines that dictated how those rules can be changed.

In short, I can disagree with rules you use and still participate. However, what I won't do is participate in something that has no codified set of rules, and refuses to create a set, and who changes those rules from year to year (or has the potential to change them from year to year on the whim of the judges).

The judges should not be setting policy, they should be implementing it. And once again, it falls back to it all happening on EN World rather than on the ENnies website. It should be happening there, not here. 

In any case, it still falls back on two main points:

1) Codified rules (that cannot be changed on a whim -- note that that was another complaint against the OAs (there were many problems with them), that the rules could be changed from year to year without notice).

2) Moving all ENnies processes to the ENnies website, not having them on a the world's largest d20-dedicated fan site.


----------



## Henry (Feb 5, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> All meaningful discussion regarding the selection of judges is happening here on EN World, the world's largest d20 fan site. White Wolf fans, ICE fans, Palladium fans, etc.. are not going to want to come here to discuss what you want folks to consider as an industry-wide fan-based award.




Just a point: You say that as if the ONLY thing that goes on here is discussion of d20 gaming, when this is not the case. It's the majority of what's discussed here, but the forums have grown out to other discussions over time. The ENnies, as they stand now, are indeed not some idealized industry-wide award; but there's no need for it to be right this minute, either, because like everything else in this world it's got to grow and evolve and see what it ends up becoming.  I'd rather let it do that organic growth, and celebrate what it is now, rather than too quickly force it into something that it's not, just as the Origin awards were by tons of competing forces.

If one doesn't want to participate, then great; if one decides to jump back in when things are more to their liking, then great, too. If you choose not to participate, and try in your own way to change from within, working with the system instead of against it, then that's your choice. But I personally would hate to see it make changes that would possibly doom it ahead of time through good-intentioned tinkering.


----------



## Rasyr (Feb 5, 2007)

Dextra said:
			
		

> I try not to respond to trolls, and since you obviously have such a hate on for all things d20 and anything remotely associated with them yet still post here, I confess I'd relegated you to troll status.  It's not worth rehashing everything with you here.  My email address is not a secret, if you want to continue this discussion with me in private, fine.  But I'm not going to help add fuel to your fire here.




Right... So now I am relegated to the status of troll, because I think that the ENnies need to be fair to everybody. And I supposedly hate d20 because I feel that the ENnies have a bias towards it.

First off, I don't hate d20. I actually like it quite a lot, even though I have a few issues with how it does things (then again, no system is perfect, not even the one I wrote). I seriously doubt that you could find any sort of post from me, anywhere, that has me purposely bashing d20.

You seem to think that this is about the d20 system. It isn't and it shows that you are not even bothering to read what I am saying since I have specifically stated that several times now. This is about fairness to the participants and to the voters and to not showing favoritism to one group by forcing the others to a different site (a site about a system that is NOT their favorite system) but not that group.

Continue the discussion in private? So I can be relegated to troll again, this time in private? Sorry, but I don't think so. Why can't these things be discussed publicly? These are fan-based awards, so why shouldn't they get to have a say in them?

The Board should be the ones making the decisions, but they should be listening and holding open discussions.



			
				Dextra said:
			
		

> I do care what you and others have to say, and have made many changes over the years, including moving the ENnies off EN World




Moving the static pages off is not the same as moving the voting and judge selection off, which I note has not happened as of yet, not that I have seen.



			
				Dextra said:
			
		

> and opening the voting and judgehood to non EN Worlders.  Over the past six months we've been moving towards better-defiined categories, and making certain that certain products cannot cross too many categories.  If you had taken the time to ASK rather than start posturing about how you were going to take your bat and ball and go home, you would know these things.




Yes, some progress has been made but not enough. I refer again to my two main points. *Codified rules* and *Fairness for all participants/voters*.



			
				Dextra said:
			
		

> There's not much more that we can or will do, and quite frankly, it's not my responsibility to please the publishers.




Please the publishers? No. I don't expect nor want you to even attempt to please the publishers. However....

Treat them all fairly? Yes. The rules used last year did not treat them all fairly. Not having a codified set of rules does not treat them fairly. Forcing their fans to come to the world's largest d20 fan site to vote on the ENnies does not treat them fairly. 

Now, you cannot tell publishers what criteria the public will use to judge them, but you can be fair and tell them what criteria the judges will be using to select their nominations, but the ENnies don't even do that yet, not in any codified manner.


----------



## Shalimar (Feb 5, 2007)

As someone who has never heard of ICE, and this is my first exposure to it, I am getting a very negative opinion of it.  What is coming across is an ICE Publisher or employee is trying to muscle his way in and control a FAN award.  Publishers have no business trying to control the process of a fan award, and Rasyr's posts are coming across as heavy handed and ultimatum strewn.  He has been told what the policies are and how they were already changing to fix some of the things he mentioned, he has been told his threats wont change things and he needs to put up, ICE not participating anymore as he said, or shut up.

I'd point out that people's purchasing habits are influenced by their opinions of the people who make the product.  I would just like to add that apparently a person like me cannot exist, I don't particularly like the D20 system, I enjoy WoD and Shadowrun far more, and yet I hang here where it is possible to play in games of various systems, and discuss sci-fi and fantasy things in the media lounge.


----------



## Rasyr (Feb 5, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> If one doesn't want to participate, then great; if one decides to jump back in when things are more to their liking, then great, too. If you choose not to participate, and try in your own way to change from within, working with the system instead of against it, then that's your choice.




I am working within what the current system allows me. I cannot run for judge, not unless I want to quit my job. I cannot do more than I am doing right now, forcing the things that I see as wrong out into the light and trying to get a dialog going on about them.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> But I personally would hate to see it make changes that would possibly doom it ahead of time through good-intentioned tinkering.




Being fair to publishers and their fans is doom???


----------



## Rasyr (Feb 5, 2007)

Shalimar said:
			
		

> Publishers have no business trying to control the process of a fan award, and Rasyr's posts are coming across as heavy handed and ultimatum strewn.  He has been told what the policies are and how they were already changing to fix some of the things he mentioned, he has been told his threats wont change things and he needs to put up, ICE not participating anymore as he said, or shut up.




To be absolutely clear, I am not trying to control the awards, or to make threats of any sort. I am trying to urge towards keeping the awards fair for all. I am speaking up for those fans that won't come here because it is a d20 site.

Since ICE is not participating in the awards this year, I felt that I could speak up (as I officially have no stake in the awards this year). Perhaps I should have made this two separate posts to begin with (but then again, I would have likely been accused of something else).

However, since bring this topic up, I have been dismissed out of hand, and been called a troll, and all for wanting what I think could be a VERY EXCELLENT award become that, to reach its potential.

Have I asked for anything that would give one publisher an advantage over another? No I have asked for things that to ensure fairness and consistency, nothing more. I may not have phrased it well sometimes, but that is all I am after.

Keep in mind, I am only human.. and I can make mistakes...


----------



## Morrus (Feb 5, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> All meaningful discussion regarding the selection of judges is happening here on EN World, the world's largest d20 fan site. White Wolf fans, ICE fans, Palladium fans, etc.. are not going to want to come here to discuss what you want folks to consider as an industry-wide fan-based award.
> .




The only major discussion taking place at present it this one, in a thread *you* started _here on EN World_.  Again, you've lost me.

We don't want a centralised ENnies discussion point.  That's why the ENnies site doesn't have messageboards.  We want them discussed far and wide.

So, if you mean what you preach - go talk about this on RPGnet, The Forge, RPGHost, and anywhere else you feel like it.  But don't blame us for the location of a thread which you started.



> The Board should be the ones making the decisions




It's a democratic process, with elected policy makers each year.  This is deliberate to _prevent _ bias and industry influence, not to create it.



> Yes, there is an ENnies website, but what takes place there? Not the selection of the judges, not the voting on the ENnies. The only thing the site is used for is to display information after the fact.




The ENnies voting did not take place on EN World last year.

Rasyr, with all due respect, _what are you talking about_?  Undertand that, to me, this is coming across as an incoherent rant with little basis in fact.  I don't think you mean it to be, but I'm just having trouble getting to the core of your point, when the examples you rpovide tend to not be accurate.  Are you sure it's the ENnies you're talking about, and you haven't confused them with some other awards prgram?


----------



## BSF (Feb 5, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> All meaningful discussion regarding the selection of judges is happening here on EN World, the world's largest d20 fan site. White Wolf fans, ICE fans, Palladium fans, etc.. are not going to want to come here to discuss what you want folks to consider as an industry-wide fan-based award.
> 
> If I gave you your own forum (and made you its moderator) over on the ICE website (or even on my own personal webiste) to use for all ENnies discussions, how many d20 fans do you think would go there to discuss the ENnies?
> 
> Not many, simply because they won't want to go to the website of a competitor of their favorite system. The same reasoning applies to the fans of the other systems. They don't want to come here. I have already had to slightly reprimand one poster on the ICE forums for being a bit too vehement in his comments in the thread that Treebore started over there.




You keep saying this type of thing over and over.  Frankly, I find it a tad insulting.  Who are you to say that I am not a fan of other game systems?

My nearest bookshelf has my copy of Feng Shui, True20 and Arcana Unearthed on it.  This is the shelf nearest my gaming table, where I am currently typing this missive.

Next to my bed are two Exalted books, Harp's Cyradon and, oddly enough, an old copy of Treasures of Middle Earth.  

Light reading, if you will.  

Yeah, I play d20 games.  That isn't all that I play.  Games new and old can be found throughout my house.  I also happen to post here at EN World.  Mostly at EN World because I prefer the tone and community here.  It is different elsewhere and I don't enjoy posting at other places as much.  

The ENnies were spawned from EN World.  That is the history, those are the roots.  It was this community that breathed life into the ENnies.  Others, all others, are invited to join us.  All others are invited to participate at whatever level they want.  Many people do not like the tone here.  Sure that has to do with the d20 tone, but it also has to do with the Code of Conduct as well as the sense of community that exists.  Not everybody is comfortable with that community.  

I understand what you are saying.  I can concede that the appearance of bias exists.  But frankly, I am not that interested in that perception.  Even with all this bias, non-d20 games can be nominated.  Non-d20 games can win.  Why?  Because we are all gamers and we like to recognize that good games exist.  Even if we can't happen to find a group to run that game on a regular basis, even if we appreciate the game and keep playing some d20 game, we can appreciate good work and recognize a good game for what it is.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 5, 2007)

BSF said:
			
		

> Even with all this bias, non-d20 games can be nominated.  Non-d20 games can win.




Not only can, but _have_.  In fact, I'm pretty sure (off the top of my head - not checking) that ICE won a silver ENnie.


----------



## Henry (Feb 5, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> I am working within what the current system allows me. I cannot run for judge, not unless I want to quit my job. I cannot do more than I am doing right now, forcing the things that I see as wrong out into the light and trying to get a dialog going on about them.




You can do that, AND you can submit entries for awards, and win them by talking them up at various sites, campaign for products, get more people from all gaming interests participating, if you see it as totally ENWorld-dominated and thus a bad thing.



> Being fair to publishers and their fans is doom???




I refer back to quotes from Chris Pramas and Mike Mearls, one about cross-purpose interests being a problem with the Origins awards, and Mike Mearls talking about any awards having a need for independence from the publishers, rather than being influenced by them. What starts as an initiative to be fair to publishers could become a problem that damages the awards irreparably. Hence my desire for gradual changes rather than dramatic ones.


----------



## Rasyr (Feb 5, 2007)

sigh.... I never said other games couldn't win, I just said that there was an innate bias towards d20 because the awards are hosts/discussed/presented/whatever here.

I posted here Morrus, because regardless of where I post, this is the DE FACTO home of the forums. Whether you want to see that or not. Besides, I am not referring to discussion regarding the Ennies themselves by fans, I am talking about discussions by those in charge of the ENnies. This is the defacto place for it.

Here is where the ENnies has its hidden forum for the judges to discuss entrants. Here is where everything important to the ENnies is done.

If you refuse to remove the blinders to see that it weakens the overall value of the awards to be closely associated with a single system, then so be it. I will stop discussing it here. 

BUt, so long as the ENnies are all happening here rather than on their own site,  I will refer to them as the "d20 Fan Awards" as that is the reality of what they are.

BSF - you might not be interested in that appearance of bias, but then again you don't have to be. Publishers do have to be concerned about it (and for d20 publishers, that appearance works for them), and I have had one fan foaming at the mouth at Treebore over being required to come to a d20 fan site to vote for what is supposedly an industry-wide award, that I have to be concerned about it as well. I received comments last year also.

I am sure that other publishers have as well.

EN World is an excellent site, and many of the folks that I have dealt with here are extremely well read when it comes to games and they are usually quite polite when other show up, however, that portion of EN Worlders is not representative of every single person on this site.

Enough... As I said above, I give up talking about this topic here. I made my points. Take them for what you will (you will anyways).


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 5, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> sigh.... I never said other games couldn't win, I just said that there was an innate bias towards d20 because the awards are hosts/discussed/presented/whatever here.




Sad thing is, there really aren't enough d20 products to have a d20 bias anymore.  (Although if Ptolus sweeps the majority of the awards, there is no doubt that claims of a d20 bias will be invoked, even though Ptolus (IMO) pretty much blows away any RPG accessory ever created.)

Indeed, the ENnies have virtually become irrelevant as a d20 award (due to the market).  The only way they can evolve is as an RPG award in general.

The obvious disocnnect here, is that EN World *is* a D&D/d20 (mostly) exclusive site, but the awards are not.   But what to do?


----------



## Henry (Feb 5, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> But, so long as the ENnies are all happening here rather than on their own site,  I will refer to them as the "d20 Fan Awards" as that is the reality of what they are.




Or, you could just refer to them as the ENnies, as that is the reality of what they are. 

But seriously, it sounds like an impasse of what you want versus what's happening. Changes will happen over time, it's not like it's some stodgy Academy Acting Award who hasn't changed its policies in 50 years (written down or not); but whether it will change in a fashion you'll be comfortable with I have no clue.


----------



## BSF (Feb 5, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> BSF - you might not be interested in that appearance of bias, but then again you don't have to be. Publishers do have to be concerned about it (and for d20 publishers, that appearance works for them), and I have had one fan foaming at the mouth at Treebore over being required to come to a d20 fan site to vote for what is supposedly an industry-wide award, that I have to be concerned about it as well. I received comments last year also.




Pardon my indignation Rasyr.  Because really I enjoy reading your posts.  I also appreciate that you have concerns pover the ENnies.

Allow me to clarify that.  I appreciate your concerns as a fellow board member and as a gamer.  I have been a long time fan of ICE.  I, however, do not speak in any meaningful way for how the ENnies are managed or conducted.  I am a gamer that can vote and that is the extent of my input.  

But I have a certain amount of indignation simply because anybody else could begin the same way that the ENnies began.  It was through hard work that the ENnies have become what they are.  Morrus owns the ENnies, pure and simple.  I believe it would appear to be disingenuous to try to completely seperare them.  How many people would truly believe it?  How many people would complain that the ENnies are now trying to pretend that they aren't associated with EN World.  The collective we of the boards helped build this award by offering the weight of this community to drive it forward.  Now to proclaim that this community is what keeps it from being a fan award, that we are only capable of being a d20 fan award, is somewhat disappointing.  Because without this community where would the ENnies be?  

I'm sorry you have upset fans.  But I do have to wonder if they are upset because the voting is at EN World, or if it is just because the voting isn't at their venue of choice.  EN World has thousands of silent members.  Heck, a single post on the forums puts you into at least the top 50% of posters.  Asking somebody to sign up and participate once a year really isn't all that much to ask.  

For those that really don't like it, fix the problem.  Create your own awards.  Build the community and borrow the momentum and surpass the ENnies.  That's what Morrus did.

I'm not debating your concerns on how the judging is administered.  Frankly I don't have the background.  But I do want you to understand why it sticks in my craw just a little to see an insistence that the ENnies be wholely seperate from EN World.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 5, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> All meaningful discussion regarding the selection of judges is happening here on EN World, the world's largest d20 fan site. White Wolf fans, ICE fans, Palladium fans, etc.. are not going to want to come here to discuss what you want folks to consider as an industry-wide fan-based award.




Rasyr, unfortunately, you miss the target on a major practical matter - discussion of anything has to happen in theplace where people would normally discuss things.  It isnt' that they don't want to go to the website of "a competetor" (not the EN world is a competetor of any major publisher), but they don't want to go out of their way _at all_.

Here at EN Wolrd, we only create a new forum for a topic when there's a whole lot of discussion traffic on the subject.  There's a simple reason - putting such discussion in its ownlittle space segregates it from people's normal paths, and they have to go explicitly out of their way to see it.  That tends to reduce discussion.  The awards are not so important a part of most gamer's lives for them to go out of their way to get into it.  

If White Wolf, ICE, or other fans want to discuss the awards, they ought to do it wherever they discuss gaming.  There is nobody here stopping them.  What little discussion that's happening here is being driven by the judge candidates and a small number of interested parties - it isn't driven by the board.




> If the ENnies had a codified set of rules and perhaps a set of guidelines that dictated how those rules can be changed.




You're supposed to know gaming, right?  What happens when you have a rule set in stone?  People start to try to "game the system".  You'll start getting "ENnies munchkinisms", workarounds and edge cases that play the rules like a fiddle. 

You have just stated the #1 way to make the ENnies bog down in red tape.  The gamign world is not particularly static - publishers come up wiht new products that don't fit well in old pidgeonholes.  We need an award system that flexes with the times and with the gaming world, and does so _quickly_ - the process of dealing with the awards is already a great deal of work, adding more work to unpaid personnel is a good way to kill the thing entirely.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 5, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> And that is exactly one of the points I was trying to make. There NEEDS to be one. There needs to be codification, not "rule by whim".




No, there doesn't.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 5, 2007)

I'm seriously at a loss to figure out why the ENNIES shouldn't be hosted at EN World.

It seems like a lot of bellyaching that (a) the awards are _growing_ in relevance and (b) you can't control it.

ENWorld has one of the largest and most active fan communities. They talk about what they want to talk about.

You act as if it is someone's _fault_ that the ENNIES have evolved the way they have. It's purely a fan-based award. In my opinion, that's _why they are relevant_. 

You don't like the ENNIES, go grow your own community and start your own awards. 

For crying out loud. This is a stupid argument.


----------



## Monte At Home (Feb 5, 2007)

Since White Wolf's name is getting thrown around a lot by a lot of people here, I thought I'd just mention that everyone I've spoken to at White Wolf about the awards loves the ENnies.


----------



## Khairn (Feb 5, 2007)

I love these boards, this community and in the past have followed the ENnies with both my time and my $.  Its a shame that internet forums are such poor vehicles for having honest and open discussions.

I've read this thread from top to bottom (yeah a masochist ... what can I say?) and I'm really disappointed in what I'm seeing.

As an active member of this forum (and many others), a game designer and a publisher, Rasyr has honestly and without rancor started a thread to explain the reason's why ICE will no longer be participating in the ENnies.  He has brought up an example from last year where ambiguous rules and a lack of any direction caused what he (and ICE) believe is a problem with the integrity of the awards, and may be an indicator of future problems.

He has also stated his concerns that the ENnies desire to be an industry-wide award, is compromised by its very active link with this site and D20 systems.  He's acknowledged that some actions have been taken to seperate the ENnies from being just a EN World & D20 award, but believes that more needs to be done before he (and ICE) return.

Whether you agree with him or not, he has honestly and openly shared his views and explained the reasons why.  And he has done this on the only site where ENnies have active participation from voters and judges.

For his candor and honesty he has been called a troll, told to hold the discussion in private, told to just suck it up and deal with, and told to encourage those gamers who don't like the D20 system to get involved on a D20 board in order to express their opinion.

Has Rasyr's history on these and other boards been so bad that his opinion is tossed away like a copy of Synnibar?

Wow. So much for open minded discussion.  You might want to shut down this thread before other publishers see it.


----------



## HellHound (Feb 5, 2007)

He also stated that no matter what changes are made, ICE won't participate. 

Thus, why should a lot of effort be given to this?

"I hate this system, change it now because I refuse to be involved if it remains the same or if it changes!"

Honestly, I keep reading a call for "clear and precise rules" for everything - when I know that in my experience providing a set of concise rules like that instead of goals and a statement of intent allows for people to twist those rules to get results the opposite of the intent.

In my opinion, intent is WAY more effective than clear and precise rules.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Feb 5, 2007)

HellHound said:
			
		

> Honestly, I keep reading a call for "clear and precise rules" for everything - when I know that in my experience providing a set of concise rules like that instead of goals and a statement of intent allows for people to twist those rules to get results the opposite of the intent.
> 
> In my opinion, intent is WAY more effective than clear and precise rules.




I think it became a bigger issue after the Shackled City nominations. Many people seem to think those guidelines were used to make a poor judgment.


----------



## Khairn (Feb 5, 2007)

HellHound said:
			
		

> He also stated that no matter what changes are made, ICE won't participate.




I think it was more that, with the way things are now, he couldn't see coming back.  But if things changed he would be happy to take another look.

Those 2 things he was talking about were greater independance for ENnies outside of any system or site (something that has already begun) and a clearer understanding of the rules and procedures for judges.

Since the ENnies had already begun to "seperate" ... is all this discussion and hard feelings because he prefers to support an award system that has clearly defined rules??


----------



## Morrus (Feb 5, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> For his candor and honesty he has been called a troll,




He was, I agree.



> told to hold the discussion in private,




I don't think he was.



> told to just suck it up and deal with,




Again, I don't see that.



> and told to encourage those gamers who don't like the D20 system to get involved on a D20 board in order to express their opinion.




And yet again... no he wasn't.



> Has Rasyr's history on these and other boards been so bad that his opinion is tossed away like a copy of Synnibar?




No - it's that he was responded to, and just wouldn't accept the answers.  My first response was, simply, "fair enough - sorry to hear it."  That should have been it; agree to disagree; it's not like I'm who he needs to convince of anything.  He decided to continue to argue - so people who disagreed with him argued back. 

Open minded discussion, and all that.  Nobody with policy-chaning power has posted in this thread.  Nobody has been elected yet.  We're just a bunch of posters at the moment.

Or were we not allowed to do anything but agree with him?  An odd stance given your next comment: 



> Wow. So much for open minded discussion.




Unless "open minded discussion" in your mind means "Rasyr's point of view".

In addition, he continued to say stuff that just wasn't true, and that needed to be corrected.

Eh, this is just getting silly now.

The whole beauty of the ENnies is that they ARE transparent.  Most things like this, you'd just get a canned coorporate response.  Here, we do it publically.  You know what people are thinking, planning, etc.  And you know when we disagree, too.

All redundant anyway, because Denise and I aren't making the policy, we're merely organising things.  The judges will make the policy once elected as they have every year.  I'm sure potential judges are reading this, and maybe some of them will agree and build a platform based on that.  Cool, innit?


----------



## HellHound (Feb 5, 2007)

I agree it became a bigger issue at that time. I don't know if it has been said here or anywhere, but I beleive that the awards management have learned from the issues raised by "the Shackled City incident" and that the new goal is to avoid further events like that because of the negative press it produces.

At the same time, providing a hard and fast rule on how this will work would only provide a tool to rules lawyers to figure out how to get around it.

. . .

That said, the issue where Dextra and Razyr seem to be having problems isn't the rules and intent of the awards, but the seeming need to distance the awards from ENWorld. 

As the marketing guy working with the awards now, I am privy to a lot of inside information that I am not yet at liberty to discuss (mainly because the business manager of the ENnies is not available for me to talk to at this time as she is with our eldest daughter at dance class).

But allow me to state flat-out: The _intent_ as far as I can see it this year is to try to avoid a similar situation as "the Shackled City incident" last year. However, there is no intent to distance the awards any further from ENWorld than they already are. By breaking the branding between the awards and ENWorld, then the owner of the brand is destroying all the work that has gone into strengthening the brand name through the site and awards.


----------



## jezter6 (Feb 5, 2007)

I think this is easy. ENNIES...named for a reason. d20 board or not. Open discussion of any game system is allowed here. I've never heard otherwise. People may get banned for rude/abusive behavior, but not for talking about another system.

This is just a message board. Just because a lot of people here talk d20, doesn't mean the board is pro-d20. It's a free place, anyone can join, and spark conversation about anything as long as it's in a decent manner.

If you think coming here to win over d20 fans to another system is a good idea, I would  think again. It's the users that make the site what it is. Not Russ. Not Eric. Not Hellhound and Dextra. If you want more discourse on HARP, bring people over. Let them discuss harp all they want. If enough traffic comes in, I'd bet Morrus would open a sub-forum just for it.


----------



## HellHound (Feb 5, 2007)

> Do you really think that Steve Jackson or White Wolf or ICE or any other non-d20 publisher is going to fully support something fully tied to the world's largest fan site of a competitor?




Like FanPro?

Or maybe White Wolf?

How about Black Industries?


----------



## naturaltwenty (Feb 6, 2007)

I'm not a publisher...sure I dabble but I've got no products for sale.  What are the criteria for judging products or are the lists arbitrarily put together with little to no guidelines.  If those guidelines can't be pointed to, much like a forum faq or posting guidelines how do I know what I'm voting on?

Later,

Greg Volz



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to argue with you.  I'm not trying to persuade you to participate.   They're explicity not designed to be influenced by the industry (by which I mean the publishers and, by extension, you).  The moment they change to meet publishers' needs (or wants) is the moment they become useless.


----------



## naturaltwenty (Feb 6, 2007)

So it's a floating guideline or set of rules as to what constitutes a product?  That's the wackiest set of criteria that a voting procedure can have.  I mean even the Elks club or the Optimist club have a defined set of rules for voting.  As another example to be considered a viable candidate for the President of the US you have to be:

1.  A natural born citizen.
2.  Over  35 years old.

Now that's a limited set but I'd love to see the ENnies product criteria, or is that too much transparency?

Later,

Greg Volz



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> The whole beauty of the ENnies is that they ARE transparent.  Most things like this, you'd just get a canned coorporate response.  Here, we do it publically.  You know what people are thinking, planning, etc.  And you know when we disagree, too.
> 
> All redundant anyway, because Denise and I aren't making the policy, we're merely organising things.  The judges will make the policy once elected as they have every year.  I'm sure potential judges are reading this, and maybe some of them will agree and build a platform based on that.  Cool, innit?


----------



## HellHound (Feb 6, 2007)

naturaltwenty said:
			
		

> I'm not a publisher...sure I dabble but I've got no products for sale.  What are the criteria for judging products or are the lists arbitrarily put together with little to no guidelines.  If those guidelines can't be pointed to, much like a forum faq or posting guidelines how do I know what I'm voting on?
> 
> Later,
> 
> Greg Volz




In past years, based on my understanding, the judges and the ENnies committee worked together to build these categories. Once the categories are set (based in part on what products are submitted that year - for example you won't find a "monster / adversary book" category in a year when only one such book was submitted), they are typically posted along with the nominations for the public to see before voting on the nominees.


----------



## naturaltwenty (Feb 6, 2007)

So a product can't run unopposed?  How would that product be judged against anything other than it's own category?  I guess it's that whole round peg, square whole paradox.

Maybe it's my whole IT and database background, unlike data types don't mix.

I tried to find the category and nominations for last year at the website but couldn't find them.  Anyone got a link? (found it - http://www.ennieawards.com/2006.html but it just lists the categories - not the judging criteria)

Thanks,

Greg Volz



			
				HellHound said:
			
		

> In past years, based on my understanding, the judges and the ENnies committee worked together to build these categories. Once the categories are set (based in part on what products are submitted that year - for example you won't find a "monster / adversary book" category in a year when only one such book was submitted), they are typically posted along with the nominations for the public to see before voting on the nominees.


----------



## HellHound (Feb 6, 2007)

naturaltwenty said:
			
		

> So a product can't run unopposed?  How would that product be judged against anything other than it's own category?  I guess it's that whole round peg, square whole paradox.




That's right. It would have to go into another category that it fits into. For example, if there was only one monster book submitted it would get probably rolled into the best supplement category. It remains a supplement, so it fits nicely in that category.



> I tried to find the category and nominations for last year at the website but couldn't find them.  Anyone got a link? (found it - http://www.ennieawards.com/2006.html but it just lists the categories - not the judging criteria)




Go a little deeper.
http://www.ennieawards.com/2006-1.html



			
				ENnies said:
			
		

> Best Fan Site
> Awarded for a web site run by fans, for fans, ie. not by a publisher.
> 
> Fans' Choice: Best Publisher
> ...




And so on.


----------



## GwydapLlew (Feb 6, 2007)

I've said it elsewhere, but in my gaming experience, the "Shackled City" incident should really be a non-issue. If the hardcover had merely been a reprint of the adventures published in _Dungeon_, I could see the issue. However, as the hardcover had so much additional setting information that it made me decide to establish that locale as the home base for all of my d20 campaigns, I really see it as functioning as both a setting and an adventure.

I actually like that the ENnies re-establish their categories and guidelines each year. I know that it means that there will be less of an issue of people manipulating the system, as the system is torn down and replaced annually.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Feb 6, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> I have had one fan foaming at the mouth at Treebore over being required to come to a d20 fan site to vote for what is supposedly an industry-wide award, that I have to be concerned about it as well.




That just strikes me as odd. It's not like they have to actually physically go somewhere, for God's sake. Come in, vote, leave. It won't damage their computer. Reminds me of the story around the millennium when someone was scammed out of thousands of dollars buying pills so she, herself, wouldn't _physically_ catch the Y2K virus.

But this being the internet, the least little thing gets blown totally out of proportion. Please prove me wrong and ignore this post.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Feb 6, 2007)

Devyn said:
			
		

> and told to encourage those gamers who don't like the D20 system to get involved on a D20 board in order to express their opinion.




Well, I read the thread too, and here's something I clearly saw Morrus post:



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> So, if you mean what you preach - go talk about this on RPGnet, The Forge, RPGHost, and anywhere else you feel like it.




As Morrus also said, he doesn't want a centralized ENnies discussion board, but for the discussions to take place at any and all boards that have to do with RPGs. I just don't see how that equates to anyone having to come here to discuss the ENnies.


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Feb 6, 2007)

*Congratulations Rasyr!*

Just wanted to say congrats to Rasyr. He has just convinced me to never purchase a single ICE product ever. If they were still making Middle-Earth stuff I still wouldn't buy from ICE. I even deleted HARP Lite off my hard drive.

Kudos to you ol boy. Peace and smiles.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 6, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> While I am sure that I could nit-pick and find more reasons, the above are more than enough for ICE to no long participate in the ENnies, at least not until some changes are made to the overall system.





ONE hot summer’s day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. “Just the things to quench my thirst,” quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: “I am sure they are sour.”

         “IT IS EASY TO DESPISE WHAT YOU CANNOT GET.”


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> ONE hot summer’s day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. “Just the things to quench my thirst,” quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: “I am sure they are sour.”
> 
> “IT IS EASY TO DESPISE WHAT YOU CANNOT GET.”




One fine winter's day an ENWorld poster failed to make an informed comment and stumbled forth with a silly gaffe instead, not realizing that his parable didn't apply to a company that won two ENnies in 2004.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 6, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> One fine winter's day an ENWorld poster failed to make an informed comment and stumbled forth with a silly gaffe instead, not realizing that his parable didn't apply to a company that won two ENnies in 2004.





Actually, the fine winter's day, the EN World poster _did_ realize that the company won two ENnies in 2004, but felt that Aesop's timeless wisdom applied anyway.  What the company did not do was create an awards forum such as the one EN World did, and what the company decided was sour was that awards forum.

But fear not, this poster forgives you your silly gaffe.

(EDIT:  By _awards forum_ I do not mean EN World; I mean the setup of the ENnies & the way they are administered, which is the thing being criticized.)


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Actually, the fine winter's day, the EN World poster _did_ realize that the company won two ENnies in 2004, but felt that Aesop's timeless wisdom applied anyway.  What the company did not do was create an awards forum such as the one EN World did, and what the company decided was sour was that awards forum.




I completely believe that you're not switching goalposts post hoc. I am truly, utterly convinced that you really meant something else. Really and truly.


----------



## Rel (Feb 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking and eyebeams, don't make any more replies to each other in this thread.  Everybody else, if you don't have something substantive to contribute in a civil manner, stay out of this thread.  That is all.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 6, 2007)

Deleted (sorry, cross post)


----------



## billd91 (Feb 6, 2007)

GwydapLlew said:
			
		

> I've said it elsewhere, but in my gaming experience, the "Shackled City" incident should really be a non-issue. If the hardcover had merely been a reprint of the adventures published in _Dungeon_, I could see the issue. However, as the hardcover had so much additional setting information that it made me decide to establish that locale as the home base for all of my d20 campaigns, I really see it as functioning as both a setting and an adventure.
> 
> I actually like that the ENnies re-establish their categories and guidelines each year. I know that it means that there will be less of an issue of people manipulating the system, as the system is torn down and replaced annually.




I agree with this post about the SCAP issue. If a product can credibly do double-duty, why shouldn't it be nominated in both categories? Shouldn't really good cross-over products be eligible for that sort of recognition?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 6, 2007)

Rasyr (& the good people at ICE):

It might have been foolish to post Aesop without editting him first....or perhaps I should have picked a different fable.  In any event, it is not that you havn't won an ENnie, or don't think that you can (so far as I know).  I don't really care what's nominated for any award, or what wins.  I seldom agree with the Academy Awards; I seldom agree with book reviewers.  I don't buy on the basis of the ENnies.  

But this is a free service.  No one has the right to tell someone else how to do something that's free.

Anyone can set up an awards program.  I can set up an awards program.  I can throw up a page on my website and list what I think was the best in any category I want for whatever period I want.

And, probably, _no one will care_.

OTOH, here we have EN World, which has been going strong for a very long time, and which has provided a hell of a lot of free service to the rpg community.  It isn't the only forum, and it isn't the only free forum, but it's a great forum.  IMHO, at least.  YMMV.  It's a forum that is mostly helpful, is mostly open, is mostly friendly, and is mostly filled with good people.  It has earned the good will I grant it.  Again, IMHO.  YMMV.

Were I to have put as much effort -- free of charge -- into the ENnies as Morrus & Co have, I don't know how I'd respond to the OP here.  Incredulity, I imagine.  A bit of anger, probably.  Of course, I don't have the same level of class as Morrus & Co.    

Frankly, why shouldn't the ENnie judges be discussed on EN World?  People don't care about the ENnies if they don't care what the opinion here is.  Or, at least, that's my opinion.  Again, YMMV.

Don't like the way the ENnies are run?  Create your own award.

Worried that no one will care if you do?

That's where Aesop comes in.


IMHO, of course.  YMMV, of course.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Feb 6, 2007)

I do think it might be worthwhile to establish a few super-categories for core types of books, like campaign setting, rules supplement, or so on, and only allow products to be entered into one of these super-categories. The publisher could then nominate the category they want to be in, and the judges could talk with the publisher or perhaps overrule in the case of the category seeming wrong.

But none of the changes to what is a constantly evolving awards program strike me as so vitally necessary, nor are the existing policies so horribly corrupt, that they warrant public posturing about how companies will refuse to participate unless changes are made.

If you want to suggest changes, just go ahead and do so. Plenty of people already have and many of those changes have been listened to over the years.


----------



## kingpaul (Feb 6, 2007)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> not the whole product like the marketing categories of Best Adventure Module and Best Campaign Setting and so forth.



But why do you think a product can't be both a setting and an adventure? Why do you feel that Shackled City was such a bad decision? If a product fits in more than one category, why can't it compete in more than one category?


			
				Rasyr said:
			
		

> 2) The ENnies are not an industry wide award, they are a d20 award that happens to allow other games to be looked at. There is no way to avoid this, not so long as the ENnies refuse to sever their ties with EN World.



But the ENnies are hosted by ENWorld. Why is this bad? I've read your further posts, and others' comments, but I'm still lost as to why a ENWorld hosting the ENnies are bad.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 6, 2007)

To put it mildly, I am flabbergasted at this problem.

I am coming to this situation being a longtime ICE fan (back to V1 of Arms Law) and as a longtime resident on ENWorld. I vote on the ENnies every year, and have enjoyed their growth and development considerably. I was surprised at some of the choices last year, but I think that represents the fact that the RPG industry doesn't always agree with me on what the best products are. 

But I'm surprised at the attitude that the ENnies and ENWorld in general are just about D20 products. The D20 market is almost nonexistent at this point, and we had a non D20 product (Shadowrun) win the top honor last year. What's the problem? I own Shadowrun 4, and I don't see a huge crossover market between it and D20. What I do know, is that Shadowrun has a serious fanbase, and that fanbase was motivated to come out and vote for their favorite game. That's about it.

As far as Shackled City, I can see the concern at the game getting two awards, but it won those awards based on popular vote. Is the award somehow tainted because it was a D&D adventure, and most ENWorlders play D&D? To my mind, no, it wasn't, because almost everyone who plays RPGs is familiar with D&D. Not everyone loves it, of course, and the ENnies were discussed heavily over at RPGNet, which can hardly be called D&D friendly. Many people came over to vote based on those discussions. Why did Shackled City win? Because people thought it was the best product in both categories, and that's it. Did it get a leg up because it was a D&D game? Of course it did, but that's because D&D is far and away the most popular RPG in the world.

Now finally, the notion that all anyone plays here at ENWorld is D&D or some variant should also be addressed. It's pure nonsense. Most of the discussion here at ENWorld is about D&D, but I know many ENWorlders who play a huge variety of games. The times when I have referenced the Hero system, or Call of C'thuhlu (two of my favorite games) I have always had people chime in with responses. When I voted last year, I took that into account with my votes and certainly didn't vote only for D&D products. Heck, I didn't vote for the Shackled City even though I purchased it and am currently running it...I hadn't seen it by the time of voting last year.

So I'm really not sure where the complaint is...color me more than a little confused.

--Steve


----------



## mearls (Feb 7, 2007)

I think the Ennies are, by far, the best awards available. They got there by working as a fan award first and foremost, not by letting publishers push them around. To be blunt, the Ennies are far more important to EN World and the 'net gaming community than any publisher. The publishers have the Origins Awards. Let the publishers run them. The Ennies should answer only to the fans and the volunteers who put hours of work into the process.

Every last publisher on Earth could hate the Ennies with the anger of a 1,000 suns, but if the fans care about them all that publisher hate is pointless. Fans decide which awards are important, not publishers, just like fans decide which books sell and which ones rot in warehouses.

By the same token, if every publisher loved the Ennies but fans just didn't care, the awards would be utterly irrelevant.

So, to be a bit cruel to Tim, you can let ICE walk. You can't afford to let the fans walk. And, sorry to say to the guys at ICE, I don't exactly see an exodus of fans following them out the door.

Heck, WotC doesn't participate, and that hasn't slowed the awards' momentum. It's utterly bogus to claim that you need publishers involved to make the awards legit. The Ennies are fine without 800 lb. gorilla of RPGs involved. They'll be fine without anyone or everyone else.

And if no print publishers enter, the PDF segment is growing by leaps and bounds. Let the young, hungry, and innovative 'net outfits compete.


----------



## mearls (Feb 7, 2007)

Pramas said:
			
		

> It is important to learn lessons about what happened with the Origins Awards. Unfortunately, any discussion of the OAs always brings out an endless litany of ill-informed bs by people who know nothing of their actual history and difficulties.




So true. That Robin Laws is just *full* of crap.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> I think the Ennies are, by far, the best awards available. They got there by working as a fan award first and foremost, not by letting publishers push them around. To be blunt, the Ennies are far more important to EN World and the 'net gaming community than any publisher. The publishers have the Origins Awards. Let the publishers run them. The Ennies should answer only to the fans and the volunteers who put hours of work into the process.




Mike, you really have to stop acting like the ENnies is Fighting the Power. It's shepherded by a publishing company and a chunk of its past judges and administration are more "industry" than swaths of AGAAD.



> Every last publisher on Earth could hate the Ennies with the anger of a 1,000 suns, but if the fans care about them all that publisher hate is pointless. Fans decide which awards are important, not publishers, just like fans decide which books sell and which ones rot in warehouses.
> 
> By the same token, if every publisher loved the Ennies but fans just didn't care, the awards would be utterly irrelevant.




Marketing shapes opinion. I know it appeals to people who want to yell to the skies, I AM A FREE MAN/WOMAN, to say otherwise, but it does matter.

Now I'm not sure about Tim's *specific* concerns. I thought the categories last year were a bit borked, but not unconscionably so.


----------



## Cathix (Feb 7, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> I think the Ennies are, by far, the best awards available. They got there by working as a fan award first and foremost, not by letting publishers push them around. To be blunt, the Ennies are far more important to EN World and the 'net gaming community than any publisher. The publishers have the Origins Awards. Let the publishers run them. The Ennies should answer only to the fans and the volunteers who put hours of work into the process.
> 
> Every last publisher on Earth could hate the Ennies with the anger of a 1,000 suns, but if the fans care about them all that publisher hate is pointless. Fans decide which awards are important, not publishers, just like fans decide which books sell and which ones rot in warehouses.
> 
> ...




Put a smile on my face to read this, sir. Thanks.


----------



## mearls (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Mike, you really have to stop acting like the ENnies is Fighting the Power. It's shepherded by a publishing company and a chunk of its past judges and administration are more "industry" than swaths of AGAAD.




Huh? The judges are voted in by the fans. EN World Publishing doesn't enter products, nor is it run by the same people. The award administrators have little say in who enters, aside from setting requirements. Voting is open to the public.

Publishers have the Origins Awards. If publishers want an award process that provides them with a significant say in how it's run, they can join the OAs. That's what the OAs are there for. If anything, the Origins Awards have taken a lot of steps toward fixing themselves. Now seems like a great time for a publisher or designer to step in and help out.

More importantly, what exactly would publisher input do to improve the Ennies? They have GenCon and one of the top Internet gaming sites behind them. What can a lone publisher do?

What does marketing have to do with the Ennies, in so far as determining their effect on gamers? The OAs had GAMA behind them, yet no one takes them seriously. The OAs take out ads in magazines and reach out to retailers, yet still they languish.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 7, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> Huh? The judges are voted in by the fans. EN World Publishing doesn't enter products, nor is it run by the same people. The award administrators have little say in who enters, aside from setting requirements. Voting is open to the public.
> 
> Publishers have the Origins Awards. If publishers want an award process that provides them with a significant say in how it's run, they can join the OAs. That's what the OAs are there for. If anything, the Origins Awards have taken a lot of steps toward fixing themselves. Now seems like a great time for a publisher or designer to step in and help out.
> 
> ...





Aparently some people have convinced themselves that the judges have all been hand puppets of Morris. When I met them at GenCon I could have sworn they were all walking and talking under their own willpower. 

I know I won't be ENWorlds, or any publishers, puppet. The only "influence" I am going to allow to influence me if I am fortunate enough to become one is the opinions of the fellow judges.

I agree that categories and rules could use a good look over, maybe even some rewriting.

However, the awards are totally fan controlled. They elect the judges, they vote which products are the best in which categories.

People can claim that it is all rigged because of ENWorld members, but if any rigging is done it is by the very people who refuse to participate in the voting process, not the people who actually vote.

Everyone is being actively encouraged to vote this year, whether an ENWorld member or not.
People who refuse to participate are the only serious "problem" the ENNIE's have.

If people really want the ENNIE's to truly be an "industry" award then they had better get involved. OTherwise it will continue to be primarily "ENWorlders" who influence the outcome of the awards, and therefore influence the market far more than the "silent people" who refused to vote/participate.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> Huh? The judges are voted in by the fans. EN World Publishing doesn't enter products, nor is it run by the same people. The award administrators have little say in who enters, aside from setting requirements. Voting is open to the public.




The guy who popped in on this thread to remind everyone that he owns the awads and can do whatever he likes with them is presumably the same Morrus that's here. I highly doubt a Clone Saga or Bizarro Morrus is involved. 



> Publishers have the Origins Awards. If publishers want an award process that provides them with a significant say in how it's run, they can join the OAs. That's what the OAs are there for. If anything, the Origins Awards have taken a lot of steps toward fixing themselves. Now seems like a great time for a publisher or designer to step in and help out.




Uh, that's not how the OAs works. You talk like some publishers get together in a cabal or something, but the OA process has just as much fan participation. Nominees are chosen by gamers and selected by academy folks (except for Game of the Year). Compare this to judges selecting ENnies noms who are voted on by fans. Tomato, frickin' tomahto.

I mean, seriously, Mike. I don't even like the OAs (remember how I called them meaningless in '06?) and my work won an ENnie last year, but I'm just not buying the way you're framing it.

As for who "messed up" the OAs, the first problem with them is that they cover a bunch of small markets, one or two large markets and pretend they're all the same market. The second problem and third problems I'm aware of would increase the temperature of the discussion here by quite a bit, so I'll avoid them.



> More importantly, what exactly would publisher input do to improve the Ennies? They have GenCon and one of the top Internet gaming sites behind them. What can a lone publisher do?




Apparently a lone publisher was sufficient to make Tim Dugger and ICE wash their hands of the awards, with said publisher responding with words to the effect of, "It's mine and I don't care what you think." But that happens to be the publisher already associated with the ENnies -- which is kind of my point. The ENnies are not a noble fan pursuit. They're an annex for a publisher and his site. There's nothing much wrong with this if you're going to be honest about it. If you get pretenses about the ENnies sticking it to the man or something, that's just wacky.

(Now what Morrus said -- it's fine. Morrus made his choice and Tim made his. But even influence for the right reasons is influence.)



> What does marketing have to do with the Ennies, in so far as determining their effect on gamers? The OAs had GAMA behind them, yet no one takes them seriously. The OAs take out ads in magazines and reach out to retailers, yet still they languish.




See above. The ENnies are deliberately associated with this site and as Morrus says, will always be so. This obviously has the effect of centering voting and fan action on the opinions on this site. It's marketing.

Again, it of itself, there's nothing wrong with this, but framing it as some kind of populist triumph is disingenuous at best. The primary virtues of the ENnies are that they only cover RPGs and they're linked to this community. Everybody knows that the OAs' web presence sucked, because you just can't have a website run for the sake of one smallish banquet a year. It's nonsensical. That's an excellent reason why they can't migrate from here.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Aparently some people have convinced themselves that the judges have all been hand puppets of Morris. When I met them at GenCon I could have sworn they were all walking and talking under their own willpower.




That's really a absurd parody of the other position. The awards are obviously set up to have a bias. This is for a good reason, because otherwise, the awards wouldn't work. But it's not arising spontaneously from the pure-hearted sentiments of unblemished fandom.



> However, the awards are totally fan controlled. They elect the judges, they vote which products are the best in which categories.




Really? Did the fans pick the judge requirements that allow industry participation or set the primary venue for awards announcements?

Of course not. That was Tim Dugger's complaint. And the response was to subject him to the virtual equivalent of a public stoning (and with, I might add, a rather relaxed moderator response time when compared to many other issues). If someone had merely told Tim that interest in promoting the awards outweighed any advantages to putting forum content for them on another board, that might have been something decent. Instead, he was treated to responses that I would at least characterize as petty, and at worst would say made his argument for him far more strongly than he could.



> People can claim that it is all rigged because of ENWorld members, but if any rigging is done it is by the very people who refuse to participate in the voting process, not the people who actually vote.




Actually, nobody has a special obligation to vote, and whether or not people vote from elsewhere doesn't change the site-centric nature of it at all. It's not "rigged," but it's not neutral. It it was at a neutral site, it would be much less popular. That;s a good reason for the awards' bias, but it doesn't make that bias go away.



> If people really want the ENNIE's to truly be an "industry" award then they had better get involved. OTherwise it will continue to be primarily "ENWorlders" who influence the outcome of the awards, and therefore influence the market far more than the "silent people" who refused to vote/participate.




Actually, my point is that it is an "industry" award. It's not a bona fide fan award. It's just a game company that gets a mix of game company guys and freelance guys to vote on some game company offerings. There is no point in the process where the word "game company" does not involve itself.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> The guy who popped in on this thread to remind everyone that he owns the awads and can do whatever he likes with them is presumably the same Morrus that's here. I highly doubt a Clone Saga or Bizarro Morrus is involved. .



You are implying (incorrectly) that a statement from Morrus regarding what he CAN do contradicts Mearl (correct) statement of what HAS been done.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 7, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> You are implying (incorrectly) that a statement from Morrus regarding what he CAN do contradicts Mearl (correct) statement of what HAS been done.





Please do not invoke logic on a messageboard.  It hurts my head.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> You are implying (incorrectly) that a statement from Morrus regarding what he CAN do contradicts Mearl (correct) statement of what HAS been done.




Influence doesn't just consist of activity. It's a whole bunch of processes. Morrus saying, "It's my awards and this is generally how I want it to be," counts, whether or not there's a specific followup.

What you are perhaps missing, though, is that I think Morrus' desire to keep the awards here is a good thing and largely responsible for its continued success -- but merely one voice amidst a popular front it aint.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Influence doesn't just consist of activity. It's a whole bunch of processes. Morrus saying, "It's my awards and this is generally how I want it to be," counts, whether or not there's a specific followup.






as a judge last year. all i gotta say is i find this funny. i didn't see anything from Morrus last year. heck, i didn't see most of what the other judges and some of the BoD said. i had them on my ignore list.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> as a judge last year. all i gotta say is i find this funny. i didn't see anything from Morrus last year. heck, i didn't see most of what the other judges and some of the BoD said. i had them on my ignore list.




As a judge last year, you share responsibility for double-dipping Shackled City -- something you were able to do because of the regulations set by those people. That appears to be a major source of Tim's gripe, which he seemed to find just *hilarious*. Right?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> As a judge last year, you share responsibility for double-dipping Shackled City -- something you were able to do because of the regulations set by those people. That appears to be a major source of Tim's gripe, which he seemed to find just *hilarious*. Right?



 You do know that diaglo was one of the top voices among the judges last year to keep Shackled City in just one category, right?  He was outvoted (and in my opinion, the judges made the right decision--for points made by GwydapLlew earlier in this thread).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 7, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> You do know that diaglo was one of the top voices among the judges last year to keep Shackled City in just one category, right?  He was outvoted (and in my opinion, the judges made the right decision--for points made by GwydapLlew earlier in this thread).





What the....?!?!  That's like saying a film can win an Academy Award in more than one category!?!!?


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> You do know that diaglo was one of the top voices among the judges last year to keep Shackled City in just one category, right?  He was outvoted (and in my opinion, the judges made the right decision--for points made by GwydapLlew earlier in this thread).




Didn't he just say he ignored all the judges and almost never talked to anybody? How does that reconcile with "top voice" exactly?

In any event, that policy led to those decisions. And  trying to separate Morrus from the awards is still most fundamentally contradicted here by Morrus himself. It's his award. As I said, I don't agree with Tim's position, but it's not an irrational one, either. It's my feeling that much of what he identifies as a problem keep the awards going. But that doesn't change the fact that the awards are owned by a guy who runs a publishing company and stokes enthusaism for them here. That's neither a fan award nor an unbiased setup. *Again*, there's nothing wrong with this except for a few ragged edges and that in my opinion, the awards should settle into something more consistent. But they still work better than everything but the Diana Jones Award.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What the....?!?!  That's like saying a film can win an Academy Award in more than one category!?!!?




It does seem that some films do actually win more then one category.    

For the record I don't think I was the person to first suggest moving Shackled City.  But I did agree with it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 7, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It does seem that some films do actually win more then one category.





Well, I might just have to start a lot of threads calling the Academy out on that, then.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Didn't he just say he ignored all the judges and almost never talked to anybody? How does that reconcile with "top voice" exactly?




Unbeknowst to us at the time, Diaglo had all but me of the Judges on his ignore list.  It actually didn't create any problems that I saw but it is something that they have to be aware of and make sure it doesn't happen again.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Didn't he just say he ignored all the judges and almost never talked to anybody? How does that reconcile with "top voice" exactly?




not all of the judges.

we voted. that's how voting works. 5 judges. odd number so ties can be broken. the system worked.

edit: btw, i feel insulted when you say i am just a judge. i am foremost a fan. i am probably the biggest fanboi you will ever meet when it comes to rpgs.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> not all of the judges.
> 
> we voted. that's how voting works. 5 judges. odd number so ties can be broken. the system worked.




I think Shackled City's double selection was a mistake, so I respectfully beg to differ. In any event, it wasn't a debate, then. If it's the voting system working then . . . well, that's my point.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think Shackled City's double selection was a mistake, so I respectfully beg to differ. In any event, it wasn't a debate, then. If it's the voting system working then . . . well, that's my point.




i too respectfully differed. it was debated.
i was on the losing end.
the system worked.

btw, i'm having to log off and on to read most of this thread.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 7, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It does seem that some films do actually win more then one category.
> 
> For the record I don't think I was the person to first suggest moving Shackled City.  But I did agree with it.




I suspect I was the first person to suggested putting the Shackled City in multiple categories.

Some can sit and say despite the size, it's essentially only an adventure. I disagree with them. With dozens of NPCs, locals, the city itself, several areas around the city, and unique rules for this sub-setting, I had no problem requesting that we put it in the campaign category as well.

Not everyone agrees with that. I can see why. The primary purpose of the book isn't to act as a setting. That doesn't mean that the book can't  function as one. I have friends for example, who haven't used the Shackled City adventure path, but have used the guilds, have used the nobles, have used the areas around Cauldron for their own purposes. That to me showcases the  versitility of the book and shows that to me at least, it was a good call.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think Shackled City's double selection was a mistake, so I respectfully beg to differ. In any event, it wasn't a debate, then. If it's the voting system working then . . . well, that's my point.





No, we did talk about it like we talk about everything.  Some said we need to move the book.  Someone else said why.  The original person listed their reasons.  We for the most part had no issues with it and that was that.  It's very informal discussions.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think Shackled City's double selection was a mistake, so I respectfully beg to differ.




Well, there's something important to ask here...

Failure to match the judgement of a particular person means the system means the system doesn't work?  The whole point of having multiple judges and public voting it so make sure the awards more closely match the will of the masses, not the will of specific individuals.

So, rather than declare the system a failure due to not agreeing with you, perhaps you should consider the possibility that your personal will (or the will of any smallish sub-group of the community) should not be the deciding factor.


----------



## Pramas (Feb 7, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> So true. That Robin Laws is just *full* of crap.




For every Robin Laws there are at least 20 chuckleheads. 

The thing about the Origins Awards is that their story is complicated and no one likes complicated stories. They want nice easy answers instead. What happened with GAMA and by extension the OAs a couple of years ago is not easy to explain and the trouble it would take to do so would be wasted. The average gamer doesn't care about GAMA's politics. Hell, the average industry person doesn't either. 

I'd say there are two important lessons to be learned from the Origins Awards:

1) Good intentions are not enough. Many, many people with the best of intentions have been involved in the Origins Awards. Charles Ryan and Nicole Lindroos, good and decent people both, spent many years trying to make the Origins Awards better to this day they are vilified in some quarters for their efforts. 

2) Just because no one has messed with you doesn't mean they won't. The Ennies to date have been great and they have avoided many of the things that harmed the OAs. This does not make them immune to being messed with.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, there's something important to ask here...
> 
> Failure to match the judgement of a particular person means the system means the system doesn't work?  The whole point of having multiple judges and public voting it so make sure the awards more closely match the will of the masses, not the will of specific individuals.




You seem to be mistaking my one-off opinion about Shackled City with the point I'm making, which is:

1) The ENnies aren't a fan award by reasonably strict definitions of the term. They're a publisher award.

2) That even though there's a good reason for the systemic biases in the awards, they still exist.

Whether "the system" agrees with me isn't the point. Then again, with Shackled City, the system didn't even agree with itself -- It couldn't even follow its own categories. When it's necessary to circumvent a system's guidelines to get a desired result, the system has a problem. People believing it's wonderful has about as much influence over the validity of this observation as really, really wanting 2+2=5.

Aside from that, there's the fact that companies submit their products in good faith. Tim Dugger obviously feels ill-used because he submitted a product for a category in good faith only to have it lose to a product that was only competing with his because the judges bent the rules.

If this had happened in the OAs, then it would actually have been democratic, since the general public votes on noms. And note that this is in an awards ceremony that is not exactly held up as a shining example. To actually behave in a less accounatble fashion than the OAs . . . that's a certain *kind* of impressive, I guess.

But it wasn't. It was a bunch of guys volunteering for a d20 publisher's promotional tool who made the decision, with at least one of them being an on-again, off again writer for that system, and some of the rest being the same guys -- in some cases for several years running. That doesn't look like any kind of dynamic, fan-informed process. It may not *be* lousy, but it doesn't look all populist, either.


----------



## HellHound (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> volunteering for a d20 publisher's promotional tool




You know as well as I do that the ENnie awards predate the existance of Natural 20 Press or ENPublishing.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 7, 2007)

HellHound said:
			
		

> You know as well as I do that the ENnie awards predate the existance of Natural 20 Press or ENPublishing.



 Wait a second, have you won anything since Portable Hole Full of Beer? 

You're doing a heckuva job gamin' the system, bro. You know, not winning any awards for products that you're not giving away for free isn't exactly the world's most efficient promotional tool.


----------



## Allensh (Feb 7, 2007)

This discussion has had one effect on me. It does not make me feel positive towards ICE.

Of course, since ICE's original incarnation published something by me, signed a contract to pay me $50 and never did, I don't feel too positive about ICE anyway.

(That would be in Hero System Almanac #1, the article on converting Justice Inc. to Hero System 4th edition, in case you want to look it up. Steve Peterson added material to it so his name is on the article too.)

Allen Shock


----------



## billd91 (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> If this had happened in the OAs, then it would actually have been democratic, since the general public votes on noms. And note that this is in an awards ceremony that is not exactly held up as a shining example. To actually behave in a less accounatble fashion than the OAs . . . that's a certain *kind* of impressive, I guess.
> 
> But it wasn't. It was a bunch of guys volunteering for a d20 publisher's promotional tool who made the decision, with at least one of them being an on-again, off again writer for that system, and some of the rest being the same guys -- in some cases for several years running. That doesn't look like any kind of dynamic, fan-informed process. It may not *be* lousy, but it doesn't look all populist, either.




Let's not forget that a "populist" approach to selecting nominations is subject to a great deal of systematic bias as well. People will have a tendency to vote for the products they have a direct experience with and that leads to a bias for the higher volume seller.
The voting for the winners with the ENnies is subject to the same bias, but having a small panel of judges pick the nominees gives a smaller selling but high quality item a better footing to compete. At least it can get its foot in the door.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if it is industry insiders working on the panel as long as they're selected in a democratic way after disclosing their industry connections and managing any conflicts of interest they may have.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

HellHound said:
			
		

> You know as well as I do that the ENnie awards predate the existance of Natural 20 Press or ENPublishing.




Before that it was ENWorld's promotional tool.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Wait a second, have you won anything since Portable Hole Full of Beer?
> 
> You're doing a heckuva job gamin' the system, bro. You know, not winning any awards for products that you're not giving away for free isn't exactly the world's most efficient promotional tool.




Did you also know that when other companies have contests, they don't let themselves win and it still counts as promotion? I know, I know -- it beggars the imagination.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> That's really a absurd parody of the other position. The awards are obviously set up to have a bias. This is for a good reason, because otherwise, the awards wouldn't work. But it's not arising spontaneously from the pure-hearted sentiments of unblemished fandom.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Well, irregardless of your opinion, there are several thousand people who disagree with you, so I will continue to side with their over all opinions of the ENNIE's.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Before that it was ENWorld's promotional tool.




Actually, it was a "hey, wouldn't it be cool if we did that?"  It is not a promotional tool for EN Publishing or EN World, although I am sure that both benefit a little as a side-effect.  "Promotional tool" implies motive.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> If this had happened in the OAs, then it would actually have been democratic, since the general public votes on noms. And note that this is in an awards ceremony that is not exactly held up as a shining example. To actually behave in a less accounatble fashion than the OAs . . . that's a certain *kind* of impressive, I guess.
> 
> But it wasn't. It was a bunch of guys volunteering for a d20 publisher's promotional tool who made the decision, with at least one of them being an on-again, off again writer for that system, and some of the rest being the same guys -- in some cases for several years running. That doesn't look like any kind of dynamic, fan-informed process. It may not *be* lousy, but it doesn't look all populist, either.




um.. the judges were voted into their positions ahead of time. they were representative of the people who voted for them.

they voted based on what they said they would do. diaglo ... aka me... ran on my hat of d02. i represented my peeps.

there is a call currently for people to run as judges.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Let's not forget that a "populist" approach to selecting nominations is subject to a great deal of systematic bias as well. People will have a tendency to vote for the products they have a direct experience with and that leads to a bias for the higher volume seller.
> The voting for the winners with the ENnies is subject to the same bias, but having a small panel of judges pick the nominees gives a smaller selling but high quality item a better footing to compete. At least it can get its foot in the door.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if it is industry insiders working on the panel as long as they're selected in a democratic way after disclosing their industry connections and managing any conflicts of interest they may have.




I think the ENnies should be a fan award. Plus, too many people know each other; I can see situations where *every* judge has to recuse themselves. That'll either grind things to a halt of the judges will cheat.

On the other hand, I think a certain amount of bias is necessary because it goes with running the awards successfully. Orphan websites don't seem like a great idea.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 7, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> "Promotional tool" implies motive.




_Deleted by Admin. This thread doesn't need snarky insults._


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Actually, it was a "hey, wouldn't it be cool if we did that?"  It is not a promotional tool for EN Publishing or EN World, although I am sure that both benefit a little as a side-effect.  "Promotional tool" implies motive.




"Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we did that?" *is* a motive. People don't come up with promotional campaigns in evil boardrooms. They usually think it would *be cool if they did* something. The nature of promotion is to find things that would be cool if one did them.


----------



## kingpaul (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Plus, too many people know each other; I can see situations where *every* judge has to recuse themselves.



Could you point out a specific instance where all judges would have to recuse themselves?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we did that?" *is* a motive. People don't come up with promotional campaigns in evil boardrooms. They usually think it would *be cool if they did* something. The nature of promotion is to find things that would be cool if one did them.




You exactly what I meant, eyebeams.  The "motive" wasn't promotional, it was _something we thought we'd enjoy_.

If it's aim is promotion, it sucks, I can tell you that.  Worst.  Promotion. Ever.  Countless hours of work to achieve exactly no noticeable effect.  If that was my aim, I'd have stopped after the first year!


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Could you point out a specific instance where all judges would have to recuse themselves?




Here's one: All of the judges are associated with a nominated product through companies that contributed to a bundle it is sold in. PDF merchants are rather entangled in spots.

Of course, the temptation will be to try and use this one off as the criterion by which to measure everything else I'm saying, which would be a mistake.


----------



## GwydapLlew (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Whether "the system" agrees with me isn't the point. Then again, with Shackled City, the system didn't even agree with itself -- It couldn't even follow its own categories. When it's necessary to circumvent a system's guidelines to get a desired result, the system has a problem. People believing it's wonderful has about as much influence over the validity of this observation as really, really wanting 2+2=5.




Except that the system /did/ follow its own rules and categories. Those rules and categories are established every year by the judges. Regardless of bias or perception, I just don't understand how you can say that the guidelines were circumvented (your words) when the guidelines were followed to the letter.

The judges determine the judging criteria and categories each year. The Shackled City Hardcover was determined by the judges - using the rules established for the judges - to fall into multiple categories.

It's like saying that _Rome_ could only be nominated for Best Mini-Series *or* Best Historical Drama. If it's both, why can't it compete in both? 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Aside from that, there's the fact that companies submit their products in good faith. Tim Dugger obviously feels ill-used because he submitted a product for a category in good faith only to have it lose to a product that was only competing with his because the judges bent the rules.




See above. They didn't bend any rules.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> If this had happened in the OAs, then it would actually have been democratic, since the general public votes on noms. And note that this is in an awards ceremony that is not exactly held up as a shining example. To actually behave in a less accounatble fashion than the OAs . . . that's a certain *kind* of impressive, I guess.




How is this not accountable? If the people voting on the ENnies (you know, the fans of the games) did not consider Shackled City a better product than the others in those categories, it would have won. I don't see a lack of accountability - It's not like Lisa and Erik flew over to England and offered Russ a hundred dollars if he'd allow SCAP into multiple categories.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> But it wasn't. It was a bunch of guys volunteering for a d20 publisher's promotional tool who made the decision, with at least one of them being an on-again, off again writer for that system, and some of the rest being the same guys -- in some cases for several years running. That doesn't look like any kind of dynamic, fan-informed process. It may not *be* lousy, but it doesn't look all populist, either.




Have you been reading the policies? If someone wants to be a judge, they self-nominate themselves. They are then voted on by *anyone who cares about selecting the judges for the ENnies*. Not members of ENWorld. Not Russ. Not Denise. The voters are everyone who cares to vote.

If the group of judges tends to have certain familiar faces, is it because of some behind-the-scenes dealing, or because those judges a) apply for the position, b) have done a good job in the position, and c) are voted to rejoin the judges the following year?

How can you get more populist than a self-nominating, anyone-who-wants-to-regardless-of-any-other-criteria-can-vote-on-the-nominees system?


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> You exactly what I meant, eyebeams.  The "motive" wasn't promotional, it was _something we thought we'd enjoy_.




I do know what you meant. But the fact that you considered yourself to be in a position to offer it is indicates that you weren't a bunch of guys out of the blue. You had site traffic you hoped to leverage into successful awards, which you named after the site. They weren't called the d20 Awards or Noahs or anything.

Promotions can be fun and wholesome. I am not critiquing promoting the site or its offspiring at all. They can serve non-promotional goals as well as promotional goals. I think it's a good thing.



> If it's aim is promotion, it sucks, I can tell you that.  Worst.  Promotion. Ever.  Countless hours of work to achieve exactly no noticeable effect.  If that was my aim, I'd have stopped after the first year!




Dropping them in the first year would have been premature. Plus, have you actually run the numbers to look for site hit and sales correlations? I'm not going to dig, but I somehow doubt nobody connects the awards with the site and publisher of the same name.


----------



## GwydapLlew (Feb 7, 2007)

Eyebeams, you are clearly interested in improving the ENnies; if you didn't, you would be wasting your time debating this. Why don't you apply to be a judge?

I would be happy to second your nomination.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Here's one: All of the judges are associated with a nominated product through companies that contributed to a bundle it is sold in. PDF merchants are rather entangled in spots.
> 
> Of course, the temptation will be to try and use this one off as the criterion by which to measure everything else I'm saying, which would be a mistake.





um... who???? i've never published anything for anybody in any industry.

my writing credits are limited to my work at CDC.

Davey "diaglo in disguise" Jones


----------



## Morrus (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Dropping them in the first year would have been premature. Plus, have you actually run the numbers to look for site hit and sales correlations? I'm not going to dig, but I somehow doubt nobody connects the awards with the site and publisher of the same name.




Yes.  Of course I have!  One thing is absolutely clear.  The ENnies, financially, are a net loss, of a significant size.  As we expand and make more effort, that loss increases.

That's just the finances, not counting the countless man-hours.

Yet they continue.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

GwydapLlew said:
			
		

> Except that the system /did/ follow its own rules and categories. Those rules and categories are established every year by the judges. Regardless of bias or perception, I just don't understand how you can say that the guidelines were circumvented (your words) when the guidelines were followed to the letter.




Yes. The judges fudged their own rules. 



> It's like saying that _Rome_ could only be nominated for Best Mini-Series *or* Best Historical Drama. If it's both, why can't it compete in both?




Because we'e not talking about a TV show. We're talking about substantial differences in content (like dozens of pages of adventure material as the dominant content of the book) between the eventual winner and every competitor in the category.



> How is this not accountable? If the people voting on the ENnies (you know, the fans of the games) did not consider Shackled City a better product than the others in those categories, it would have won. I don't see a lack of accountability - It's not like Lisa and Erik flew over to England and offered Russ a hundred dollars if he'd allow SCAP into multiple categories.




D'you really think that brand recognition did not factor into affairs at all?



> Have you been reading the policies? If someone wants to be a judge, they self-nominate themselves. They are then voted on by *anyone who cares about selecting the judges for the ENnies*. Not members of ENWorld. Not Russ. Not Denise. The voters are everyone who cares to vote.




As Tim pointed out, activity is centered on this site. It is disingenuous to claim that this has no effect on selection. In a beter-working system, this would have checks and balances to prevent a system of near acclaim. Believe it or not, in real organizations, no-contests are a sign of *failing* accountability.



> If the group of judges tends to have certain familiar faces, is it because of some behind-the-scenes dealing, or because those judges a) apply for the position, b) have done a good job in the position, and c) are voted to rejoin the judges the following year?




No, it is not a conspiratorial strawman As I have repeatedly said it isn't, why don't you put that one to bed? The reason is because there are poor controls on judge selection that tend to a certain sameness in selections.



> How can you get more populist than a self-nominating, anyone-who-wants-to-regardless-of-any-other-criteria-can-vote-on-the-nominees system?




By having a system that weeds out acclaim and leapfrog candidates.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

GwydapLlew said:
			
		

> Eyebeams, you are clearly interested in improving the ENnies; if you didn't, you would be wasting your time debating this. Why don't you apply to be a judge?
> 
> I would be happy to second your nomination.




Because I have an active financial interest in the hobby. I'd like the fan award to be an actual fan award.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Yes.  Of course I have!  One thing is absolutely clear.  The ENnies, financially, are a net loss, of a significant size.  As we expand and make more effort, that loss increases.
> 
> That's just the finances, not counting the countless man-hours.
> 
> Yet they continue.




I'm not talking about the profitability of the ENnies, though. They naturally don't make any money.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 7, 2007)

DaveyJones said:
			
		

> um... who???? i've never published anything for anybody in any industry.
> 
> my writing credits are limited to my work at CDC.
> 
> Davey "diaglo in disguise" Jones





Loved your work in _Pirates of the Carribean II_, BTW.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

DaveyJones said:
			
		

> um... who???? i've never published anything for anybody in any industry.
> 
> my writing credits are limited to my work at CDC.
> 
> Davey "diaglo in disguise" Jones




Remember that this was in reference to Billd91, who said that there shouldn't necessarily be industry restrictions. If you had a significant number of active industry people you'f get problems like this. For to OAs, the size of the Academy is supposed to take care of this. Then again, I have no idea how big it is now.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> D'you really think that brand recognition did not factor into affairs at all?




it didn't with me.

edited: i'm sorry if you feel threatened. but don't call me a liar


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

DaveyJones said:
			
		

> it didn't with me.
> 
> if you wish to say otherwise, i'm gonna tell you where i'm gonna stick my foot for calling me a liar




You weren't all of last year's voters, were you?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about the profitability of the ENnies, though. They naturally don't make any money.




Well, you'll need to be a bit clearer then, because if by "running the numbers" you weren't talking about the financial side-effects of a "promotional tool"  I don't understand what you're getting at?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 7, 2007)

Incidentally, we're thinking of adding the *Rasyr Award * for the person who does the most work promoting the ENnies and raising their exposure on multiple messageboards each year.  We'd collectively like to thank Rasyr for his tireless efforts, which have exceeded even those of the people whose job it is to publicise the ENnies! 

It's kinda funny. We have three groups (aside from ENnies people):

1) A tiny number of industry people who are VERY VOCAL about how they want the ENnies changed.

2) A similar sized group of industry notables (such as Monte, Mearls, etc.) who support the ENnies and frequently state that it is vital that Group 1 does not get to influence the awards.

3) A boatload of fans who agree with the ENnies people, with one or two exceptions.

As is always the case with the internet, the vocal minority is always very much a tiny minority, and is always _very vocal_.

It's pretty much the same every year (Group 1 varies - we sometimes bet on who it'll be each year) - I dread it each year, because this period _isn't fun_.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> You weren't all of last year's voters, were you?



nope. but don't lob insults in the general area and not expect me to react. i did a lot of work. i spent a lot of time on this. and i took time off work. my own vacation time.

i wanted to see why things were the way they were firsthand. i got the full experience.

i even got to get up infront of those who despise me for my hat of d02 and present an award.

i'm telling you. if you want to knock the system that is your right. but don't throw insults around without expecting some reaction. even from me.

the system worked last year.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Well, you'll need to be a bit clearer then, because if by "running the numbers" you weren't talking about the financial side-effects of a "promotional tool"  I don't understand what you're getting at?




Well, first you'd have to figure out your gross from various streams during each stage of the awards (not *from* the awards). I'm honestly not sure how you could next realistically estimate your gross *without* the awards (since that situation has never existed) and apply the cost of the awards to the difference.

I suppse you could not have the awards one year to test it, but I don't think that'd be a great idea.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Remember that this was in reference to Billd91, who said that there shouldn't necessarily be industry restrictions. If you had a significant number of active industry people you'f get problems like this. For to OAs, the size of the Academy is supposed to take care of this. Then again, I have no idea how big it is now.





Did you buy a copy of Dread?


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

DaveyJones said:
			
		

> nope. but don't lob insults in the general area and not expect me to react. i did a lot of work. i spent a lot of time on this. and i took time off work. my own vacation time.




I don't know where you think you're being insulted.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Well, first you'd have to figure out your gross from various streams during each stage of the awards (not *from* the awards). I'm honestly not sure how you could next realistically estimate your gross *without* the awards (since that situation has never existed) and apply the cost of the awards to the difference.




I thought it was clear that was what "running the numbers" meant. 

So, at the risk of repeating myself... "One thing is absolutely clear. The ENnies, financially, are a net loss, of a significant size. As we expand and make more effort, that loss increases.

That's just the finances, not counting the countless man-hours.

Yet they continue."

Of course, I can't run the numbers without the ENnies, but I can look at spikes throughoout the year and see that they do not correspond with any aspect of the ENnies.  There just isn't the throughput of "Hear about ENnies" -> "Visit EN World" -> "Find EN Publishing" (who can't enter) - > "Buy ENP's stuff".  Just doesn't happen.  CS accounts and advertising have no notable change, either.


----------



## GwydapLlew (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Yes. The judges fudged their own rules.




How? You keep saying that they did something they weren't supposed to. Assume that I am an idiot and spell it out for me. 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Because we'e not talking about a TV show. We're talking about substantial differences in content (like dozens of pages of adventure material as the dominant content of the book) between the eventual winner and every competitor in the category.




Conveniently, I have my SCAP HC right in front of me. It's a 405-page book. The adventures take up 272 pages of it. That leaves ... a large minority of non-adventure material.

In your opinion, it does not qualify. That's perfectly acceptable, but (eyebeams approves) != (what the fans thought). 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> D'you really think that brand recognition did not factor into affairs at all?




Do you really think we'll ever live in a world were it doesn't? These aren't double-blind controlled experiments; they are an awards ceremony.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> As Tim pointed out, activity is centered on this site. It is disingenuous to claim that this has no effect on selection. In a beter-working system, this would have checks and balances to prevent a system of near acclaim. Believe it or not, in real organizations, no-contests are a sign of *failing* accountability.




I'm quite aware of "real world organizations," I've even occasionally had jobs with them.

I'm not sure what your issue with this is. The ENnies grew out of ENWorld. They have slowly weaned themselves away from ENWorld. If you are claiming a bais towards ENPublishing, I'd take a look at the number of awards they've won from the ENnies. If you are claiming a bias towards d20...then you haven't been paying attention to *who has been winning the ENnies*.

To quote FanPro after winning Game of the Year: d20 causes cancer. That was said *at* the ENnies.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, it is not a conspiratorial strawman As I have repeatedly said it isn't, why don't you put that one to bed? The reason is because there are poor controls on judge selection that tend to a certain sameness in selections.




Poor controls? "Anyone can nominate themselves as a judge if they choose to do so." "Anyone who wishes to vote on who should be an ENnies judge can do so."

Those are horrible controls. Anyone can do anything they wish. 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> By having a system that weeds out acclaim and leapfrog candidates.




Pithy phrasing, but what do you mean by that? Weed out acclaim? It's an awards ceremony! Leapfrog candidates? What are you implying?


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I don't know where you think you're being insulted.




somewhere you've said the judges aren't fans. and that they fudged. and that they have industry ties. and...

i was a judge.


----------



## GwydapLlew (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Because I have an active financial interest in the hobby. I'd like the fan award to be an actual fan award.




Then encourage fans of the industry to get involved. The problem is solved at that point.

Russ and Denise have constantly advocated and supported more companies getting their fans involved in the process.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

DaveyJones said:
			
		

> somewhere you've said the judges aren't fans. and that they fudged. and that they have industry ties. and...
> 
> i was a judge.




Some of the judges have industry ties. And they fudged the rules for their own categories with Shackled City. If you believed otherwise on the latter, you wouldn't have voted against including it, would you?


----------



## CaptainChaos (Feb 7, 2007)

Let me just say, less is more people. Make your point, support your argument, and then let it rest.


----------



## mearls (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> The guy who popped in on this thread to remind everyone that he owns the awads and can do whatever he likes with them is presumably the same Morrus that's here. I highly doubt a Clone Saga or Bizarro Morrus is involved.




OK, I think I understand the root of our disagreement.

I don't see Morrus's involvement in both EN World Publishing and the Ennies as a conflict of interest. Instead, I think that his involvement speaks to the transparency of the process. We all know that Morrus is in charge of both the awards and a publisher. We also know that the awards are linked to EN World. Since we know all that, we can make better informed judgments on the awards.

If, for example, one company kept winning awards, and it was later revealed that Morrus was involved in that company, there's clear ground to make a judgment there.

There's an element of trust in an award process that things are fair and proper. While on the face of it having the same guy run the awards and a PDF house looks suspicious, I think the awards have earned more respect and trust than other awards. I agree that, taken as a theoretical, such an arrangement isn't great, but looking at the results I haven't seen any sign of undue influence. Is there potential? Of course, but the Ennies are transparent enough that informed gamers could spot conflicts of interest.

For example, I think it's a terrible reach to say that Shackled City's wins last year were due to any improper influence. Morrus doesn't run Paizo, and I think that reasonable people could disagree with SC's placement in the awards. In this case, I trust the judges and Morrus to make the call. OTOH, if SC was an ENWP book, then I could see a justified demand for change. In such a case, the awards would (regretably) lose their prestige.

In comparison, the OAs were consistently opaque in their processes. Both rounds of voting were completed by either a group chosen by the people running the OAs or by people willing to pay AAGAD dues. It's easy for a publisher, through social connections or by simply buying memberships, to slant voting.

The Ennies have open voting for judges, open nominations for judges, open entry for publishers and designers, and a final, open voting process. The people in charge of the award are clearly idenfitied and their biases known. That's not how the OAs work.

In the case of EN World, we clearly see which publisher could have an unfair advantage, yet we haven't seen that advantage exploited.

I think there's also an issue of ownership at stake here. You mention that voting is centered here on EN World. Is that ideal? I don't think it matters either way; it has to be voted somewhere, and the 'net is fluid enough that whether I vote at URL A or B, I don't think it matters. It's not like we're asking voters to drive to a polling place 50 miles out of their way.

More importantly, the people behind EN World took the time, effort, and energy to build these awards and make them what they are. Why should they move to a different site? Again, the market will bear out whether they make the right decisions. So far, things have worked well enough. Why should Morrus lose control of the awards he created when he has, thus far, proven more than capable of the task?

Again, it comes down to transparency. We can see what the stakeholders have to gain here. If the Ennies thrive, EN World gets more traffic. If in someone's view that's an unacceptable conflict of interest, so be it. But I think that reasonable people can see that such a situation has yet to come to pass and shows no sign of looming as a threat.

As to the Ennies as a populist triumph, the awards have flourished without any direction from publishers other than Morrus*. They've completely avoided the passive-aggressive in-fighting and masturbatory backslapping that plagues industry discourse. The OAs exist as a warning for what happens when the people who win awards also run them. They're a clear testament to what happens when the portion of the hobby who decides whether awards mean anything or not (gamers) decides to put together an award.

*It's worth noting that, AFAIK, Morrus was not a publisher when he started the Ennies. The first ones were awarded in a chat room back in 2001. I believe 2002 was the first year they were presented at GenCon.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

GwydapLlew said:
			
		

> How? You keep saying that they did something they weren't supposed to. Assume that I am an idiot and spell it out for me.




I think you know what it means, as this is an RPG forum where the term is brought up constantly.



> Conveniently, I have my SCAP HC right in front of me. It's a 405-page book. The adventures take up 272 pages of it. That leaves ... a large minority of non-adventure material.
> 
> In your opinion, it does not qualify. That's perfectly acceptable, but (eyebeams approves) != (what the fans thought).




The fans didn't nominate. They voted on the slate available.



> Do you really think we'll ever live in a world were it doesn't? These aren't double-blind controlled experiments; they are an awards ceremony.




Fortunately, we live in a world where it is possible to anticipate this phenomenon and approach it reasonably.



> I'm quite aware of "real world organizations," I've even occasionally had jobs with them.




In elections of al kinds, leapfrog candidates and acclamation are to be avoided.



> I'm not sure what your issue with this is. The ENnies grew out of ENWorld. They have slowly weaned themselves away from ENWorld. If you are claiming a bais towards ENPublishing, I'd take a look at the number of awards they've won from the ENnies. If you are claiming a bias towards d20...then you haven't been paying attention to *who has been winning the ENnies*.
> 
> To quote FanPro after winning Game of the Year: d20 causes cancer. That was said *at* the ENnies.




I've alread explained that ENP's lack of participation is not the point.



> Poor controls? "Anyone can nominate themselves as a judge if they choose to do so." "Anyone who wishes to vote on who should be an ENnies judge can do so."




That's the problem.



> Pithy phrasing, but what do you mean by that? Weed out acclaim? It's an awards ceremony! Leapfrog candidates? What are you implying?




Your familiarity with real world organizations should make you similarly familiar with the problem of candidates taking their places simply because there are no other real alternatives or when candidates simply take turns at a set or shift through a static, repititious slate for the sake of appearances.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Some of the judges have industry ties. And they fudged the rules for their own categories with Shackled City. If you believed otherwise on the latter, you wouldn't have voted against including it, would you?




Which of the Judges has industry ties?


----------



## Crothian (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think you know what it means, as this is an RPG forum where the term is brought up constantly.




What was fudged?  It was stated in the rules that products could be moved from one category to another.


----------



## GwydapLlew (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Your familiarity with real world organizations should make you similarly familiar with the problem of candidates taking their places simply because there are no other real alternatives or when candidates simply take turns at a set or shift through a static, repititious slate for the sake of appearances.




This is where we disagree. Seeing as _anyone_ can be nominated and _anyone_ can vote on who should be a judge, I see it as having unlimited alternatives, and being anything but static.

It seems your complaint (in this regard) has more to do with encouraging those outside of ENWorld to apply to be a judge (and at least one of the current slate has said that he really spends more time elsewhere than here) and less to do with any ENnie- or ENW-imposed limitation.

If you want a more diverse group of judges (and I'm going to disagree with you by saying the the judges /I/ know are incredibly diverse in their attitudes towards gaming) then the simple and easy answer is to encourage those gamers you know and trust to nominate themselves as judges.

I'd love to judge, but I have accepted considerations from gaming companies so I'm not eligible. That doesn't stop me from encouraging gamers I know to apply. That doesn't stop me from mentioning to the gaming groups to which I belong from voting - even if they aren't d20 fans. That doesn't stop me from encouraging the fans of the industry from getting involved - which is the whole point of the ENnies.


----------



## kingpaul (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Here's one: All of the judges are associated with a nominated product through companies that contributed to a bundle it is sold in. PDF merchants are rather entangled in spots.



Now I'm lost. I know for this year, and I think its been a requirement every year past, the judges couldn't be associated with a publisher for the year in question.

Now, extrapolating your comment, this would imply that an RPG would need to be bundled with a non-RPG product. If that decision isn't made by the judge in question, how are they associated with the RPG?


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 7, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> OK, I think I understand the root of our disagreement.
> 
> I don't see Morrus's involvement in both EN World Publishing and the Ennies as a conflict of interest. Instead, I think that his involvement speaks to the transparency of the process. We all know that Morrus is in charge of both the awards and a publisher. We also know that the awards are linked to EN World. Since we know all that, we can make better informed judgments on the awards.
> 
> ...




I can see Tim Dugger's concerns in that ENP has an interest in promoting the pdf market in general and the d20 brand -- and keeping things centered on this site does help do that. Now my opinion is that this is unavoaidable, but "unavoidable" is not the same thing s "nonexistant," so instead of subjecting Tim to a virtual stoning, perhaps someone should have simply admitted that this sort of thing is probably unavoidable and left it at that.



> For example, I think it's a terrible reach to say that Shackled City's wins last year were due to any improper influence. Morrus doesn't run Paizo, and I think that reasonable people could disagree with SC's placement in the awards. In this case, I trust the judges and Morrus to make the call. OTOH, if SC was an ENWP book, then I could see a justified demand for change. In such a case, the awards would (regretably) lose their prestige.




The lack of consistent standards from year to year really was highlighted by Shackled City.



> In comparison, the OAs were consistently opaque in their processes. Both rounds of voting were completed by either a group chosen by the people running the OAs or by people willing to pay AAGAD dues. It's easy for a publisher, through social connections or by simply buying memberships, to slant voting.




Did anybody ever buy AAGAD memberships for this reason? In any event, the OAs have a public phase as well, for noms (and there was weighted voting for winners, but I don't know what it's like now). I don't see much difference in total meaningful participation; it's just loaded differently.



> The Ennies have open voting for judges, open nominations for judges, open entry for publishers and designers, and a final, open voting process. The people in charge of the award are clearly idenfitied and their biases known. That's not how the OAs work.




Yeah, but what I'm hearing around here are big denials of bias. Plus, the composition of the judges strikes me as being problematic as well.



> As to the Ennies as a populist triumph, the awards have flourished without any direction from publishers other than Morrus*. They've completely avoided the passive-aggressive in-fighting and masturbatory backslapping that plagues industry discourse. The OAs exist as a warning for what happens when the people who win awards also run them. They're a clear testament to what happens when the portion of the hobby who decides whether awards mean anything or not (gamers) decides to put together an award.




The OAs was also damaged by vigorous Active-Aggressive, very open fighting. Robin Laws is a very polite man. I do think the ENnies are better than the alternatives, but this is not  necessarily high praise.

EDIT: And with this, I'm done. Since responses have featured everything from insults to veiled threats, I think this demonstrates exactly the quality of discourse that's the problem in the first place.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 7, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Which of the Judges has industry ties?




Let's see...

I've done stuff for the fanzine Haymaker. (A Hero system publication that's xeroxed and sent to it's members.)

Reviews and articles for Pyramid. (Steve Jackson Games must've won everything last year... oh wait, they didn't enter.)

Material for the old fanzine Grey Worlds which got put into a Rolemaster Companion (my ICE basis must be showing there.)

Stuff for The Gamer's Connection, another fanzine by the old Gold Rush Games. (Whatever happened to San Angelo anyway eh?)

I'm sure there are other things I'm missing.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 7, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> .
> 
> There's an element of trust in an award process that things are fair and proper. While on the face of it having the same guy run the awards and a PDF house looks suspicious, I think the awards have earned more respect and trust than other awards. I agree that, taken as a theoretical, such an arrangement isn't great, but looking at the results I haven't seen any sign of undue influence. Is there potential? Of course, but the Ennies are transparent enough that informed gamers could spot conflicts of interest.
> 
> ...




Thank you, Mike.  Amidst all the accusations and demands, it's nice to see that people do believe that I have some integrity.  I appreciate it.


----------



## RangerWickett (Feb 7, 2007)

I have two pieces of information that might influence this debate:

1. The company Russ runs and I help with is E.N. Publishing, not EN World Publishing. I just want people to get our name right if you think we might be immorally profiting from the ENnies.

2. The amount of money we make through E.N. Publishing has been very small. Some people think having the awards based at EN World is profiting us, and that makes the awards untrustworthy. But if we're profiting, it's been by, like, a couple hundred bucks. Really, it's nothing worth getting your panties in a twist about.

I'd prefer if no one thought me and Russ at E.N. Publishing were sitting in dark rooms rubbing our hands together at the thought of how much money the ENnies will make us. We really, really are just doing this because we like gaming, just like the judges really, really are putting in weeks of their time just to find the best products that came out in the past year, to help raise awareness of quality game design.

Honestly, I'm at a loss. What is the real problem here? Rasyr or eyebeams, could you just spell out one collective list of what you think is wrong with the system, and why?


(In interest of full disclosure, I do want E.N. Publishing to be successful enough that I can profit from my love of this hobby, and maybe even pad a resume when I try to get a novel published, so I suppose I'm not in it _just_ for the love. But I still fail to see how the connection of EN World, E.N. Publishing, and the ENnies is a problem for the awards.)


----------



## Crothian (Feb 7, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Let's see...




I think ties though refers to a stronger link then these.  I guess someone would need to define industry ties then.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 7, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I think ties though refers to a stronger link then these.  I guess someone would need to define industry ties then.




Sorry. I buy all my shoe ties at the big man store.


----------



## GwydapLlew (Feb 7, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I think ties though refers to a stronger link then these.  I guess someone would need to define industry ties then.




For example, if we were on Christmas lists of some publishers. Or frequently posted to Circvs, or voted on which Paizo employee should be cannibalized first.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 7, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I'd prefer if no one thought me and Russ at E.N. Publishing were sitting in dark rooms rubbing our hands together at the thought of how much money the ENnies will make us. We really, really are just doing this because we like gaming, just like the judges really, really are putting in weeks of their time just to find the best products that came out in the past year, to help raise awareness of quality game design.




Y'know, that's the rub of it.  Thank you, Ryan, for putting it into words.

Amidst all the cynicism, accusations and demands, there's just one core truth: "We really, really are just doing this because we like gaming".

Those that can't comprehend that concept are just projecting their own natures onto us.  Those that can't believe that's possible, those that must find issue with every minute detail - Ryan's just explained it to you.  We're gamers.  That's it.  We're not heads of mega-corporations; we don't have secret CIA afffiliations; we don't plot and plan how the ENnies will allow us to sleep with Rasyr's wife, or empty eyebeams' bank account, or whatever**.

You don't know how many ex-Judges have said _"I won't do that again".  _ It involves a vast amount of honest work for no pay, and the reward you get is that people jump up and smear your name in every way possible.  They accuse you of dishonesty, bias, incompetence, and who knows what else.  I just want  to say it here - past Judges, you're Good People.  Thank you.  You didn't deserve the crap you got, and you still get it to this day.

In conclusion - _we_ know what we're about.  Detractors can think whatever they like.  despite them, we'll continue with aplomb*.  And thank you to those who trust us.  Mike, Monte, Clark and many others - you have my gratitude and my respect. 



*This is the second time I've ever used that word.  The first time was about 5 minutes ago, when I told Denise (Dextra) how bloody brilliant she is.  To deal with _this_ - as a volunteer! - and succeed so well.  Whatever people would like to think, the ENnis are in good hands.  Incredibly good hands.  I'm going to kill Hellhound and marry her.

** This is actually untrue.  The sole motivation behind the ENnies is to sleep with Rasyr's wife, and empty eyebeams' bank account.  It's a slow process...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 7, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I think ties though refers to a stronger link then these.  I guess someone would need to define industry ties then.




Perhaps industry ties = love of the RPG industry.

You are not sufficiently dispassionate to ensure a fair process.

The tyranny of active, involved, intelligent judges must end!


----------



## GwydapLlew (Feb 7, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> *This is the second time I've ever used that word.  The first time was about 5 minutes ago, when I told Denise (Dextra) how bloody brilliant she is.  To deal with _this_ - as a volunteer! - and succeed so well.  Whatever people would like to think, the ENnis are in good hands.  Incredibly good hands.  I'm going to kill Hellhound and marry her.




That explains the trip to the Colonies this year!


----------



## Umbran (Feb 7, 2007)

There is a very old saying - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Eyebeams and Rasyr have brought a number of _theoretical_ issues to the fore.  Things that _might_ be an influence, or a detriment.  What I'm failing to see, though, is proof that there's a real problem that needs correction.  There's a whole lot of claims that "X is a problem", and not a whole lot of data.  That the contention is plausible does not prove that it demands action.  

This goes doubly for an endeavor that is _already an economic loss_.  You want more work, and more changes, in a volunteer project that already doesn't support itself except by the goodwill of people donating their time?  Think about that for a second.  Really.

When soemone does something for your community out of the goodness of their hearts, suggestions of ways things can be done better are reasonable.  Badgering is not.  Days upon days of beating on the same points is not kindly lending a helping thought.

Here, as always, the Golden Rule applies.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 7, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Perhaps industry ties = love of the RPG industry.
> 
> You are not sufficiently dispassionate to ensure a fair process.
> 
> The tyranny of active, involved, intelligent judges must end!




don't accuse me of being intelligent. thank you very much.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 7, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> This goes doubly for an endeavor that is _already an economic loss_.  You want more work, and more changes, in a volunteer project that already doesn't support itself except by the goodwill of people donating their time?  Think about that for a second.  Really.





The ENnies also auction off products to help with the costs. And some publishers donate or sponsor.

I have the last 2 years bid on seats at the ENnies awards. I won 2 years ago. but last year i was outbid. I still donated my bid.


----------



## Dextra (Feb 7, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Perhaps industry ties = love of the RPG industry.
> 
> You are not sufficiently dispassionate to ensure a fair process.
> 
> The tyranny of active, involved, intelligent judges must end!




Agreed!
From now on, judge selection will be by randomly picking one judge from each continent, regardless of whether they can read English or know anything about RPGs.

One should always question the motives of any person who seeks power.  

Russ: I don't think he sought power.  This little online award ceremony just grew a bit.
Me: Reasons I'm interested: 1. I know I can do almost anything better than anyone else and 2. I want to impress my fanboi husband.  There have been sooooo many times that he has almost creamed when I mentioned with whom I was chatting!
Judges: SWAG.  It's not power, being a judge, but you get a bunch of really cool stuff.


But to go back a bit, I don't want to downplay some of other peoples' concerns about the ENnies and EN World's (and by implication, EN Publishing) connection.  We've done what we can to reduce the implications of any association.  If that's not enough, I'm sorry.  Well, actually, I'm not that sorry, because anyone who says that the ENnies Board is biased is questioning my (and Russ") integrity.  That's not cool, so you'll have to forgive me if I get a tad riled at the concept.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 7, 2007)

DaveyJones said:
			
		

> The ENnies also auction off products to help with the costs. And some publishers donate or sponsor.
> 
> I have the last 2 years bid on seats at the ENnies awards. I won 2 years ago. but last year i was outbid. I still donated my bid.




So, not only did you donate all your time, but you PAID them to let you do it.

You just don't understand capitalism, do you?


----------



## billd91 (Feb 7, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think you know what it means, as this is an RPG forum where the term is brought up constantly.




But this isn't a question of ignoring a die roll. So what do you mean in this context?



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> The fans didn't nominate. They voted on the slate available.




Apparently, at least a plurality of them didn't disagree. 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> In elections of al kinds, leapfrog candidates and acclamation are to be avoided.




Since there was voting at both the nomination (among the judges) and the award level, I don't think you can say acclamation even applies.
I have no idea what you're trying to say with the leapfrog term.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 7, 2007)

DaveyJones said:
			
		

> The ENnies also auction off products to help with the costs. And some publishers donate or sponsor.
> 
> I have the last 2 years bid on seats at the ENnies awards. I won 2 years ago. but last year i was outbid. I still donated my bid.




And I know a few of the judges, like myself, dropped off stuff that we weren't going to keep to help fuel the massive oil, I mean, gaming , profits.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 7, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Thank you, Mike.  Amidst all the accusations and demands, it's nice to see that people do believe that I have some integrity.  I appreciate it.





Mike's not alone.


----------



## Michael Morris (Feb 7, 2007)

I'm sitting here on my lunch break reading this thread and I'm reminded of why I rarely post publically regarding business here at EN World anymore (Hell, I rarely post here anymore). My mercurial personality has gotten me in trouble many times - hopefully this isn't one of them. Let me reintroduce myself to newer members of the board and those who've forgotten me.

I'm the tech guy.  I do the code around here. I have little patience, a poor temper, bad mood swings and, in general I'm a poor spokesman for anything.  Despite this I'm the only person other than Denise and Russ to ever helm the ENnies, in 2004. The director of the show (Russ has always been the producer of it) has no role or influence on what products get picked for what categories.  Russ in his role as producer has even less influence. Only the fan elected judges make those choices.  The ENnies staff, which varies from year to year, have our hands full getting the ceremony itself going.

Eyebeams and Rasyr, you're one of the reasons I don't hang around here anymore.  It's not entirely your fault mind you - I just don't like to test my temper.  I find your passive-agressive comments and allusions throughout your posts to be insulting. Whether those insults are intentional or the unintentional byproduct of a staggering amount of ignorance concerning the awards is known only to you.

The running of the ENnies and this site are done by volunteers. By fans. For you to say, imply or argue different is a *lie.* A spiteful and hurtful lie.  If you truly believe what you are saying I request that you leave this board and not return.


----------



## mearls (Feb 7, 2007)

One thing that I think is important is that I don't think Eyebeams is rubbing his hands together in glee as he plans to destroy the Ennies. There will be suggestions for change and voices that disagree with the Ennies' direction. This being the Internet, it's hard for people to discuss things without it turning into an argument, but I'd hate to see anyone turning a deaf ear to him in the future because of personal conflicts.

One of the things I've learned in designing stuff for public consumption is that it takes a lot of work to sort useful criticism from pointless complaints. It's worth it, though, because for everyone who is wasting your time there's someone with a legitimate issue.

While you don't want to waste your time trying to make everyone happy, you also don't want to create a climate that silences dissent. I don't see that necessarily happening here, but it'd be a pity if people felt they couldn't speak up.

EDIT: I also wanted to add one thing. I think some of Eyebeams' points relate to *potential* abuse, but I disagree that they demand an immediate address. Any award system can suffer abuse, but I think the Ennies are transparent and the people involved in running them have consistently shown they are trustworthy. I see some of his suggestions as change without clear improvement.


----------



## RangerWickett (Feb 7, 2007)

I'm not a mod, but let's not complain about each other publicly. If you don't like how someone is posting, report it to a mod. Don't post in response to them.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 7, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I'm not a mod, but let's not complain about each other publicly. If you don't like how someone is posting, report it to a mod. Don't post in response to them.



I am a mod, and I'll agree with that. Please don't publicly denigrate other people as we discuss these issues.


----------



## HellHound (Feb 7, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> One of the things I've learned in designing stuff for public consumption is that it takes a lot of work to sort useful criticism from pointless complaints. It's worth it, though, because for everyone who is wasting your time there's someone with a legitimate issue.




From my perspective (watching the inner workings of the ENnies from my wife across the room most evenings), I know that the questions and criticisms are definitely listened to and noted by her and are all weighed and considered.

If anything, it is the statements that she doesn't listen that I find amusing. I would estimate that the original post in this thread lead to a *mere* 6 hours of discussions on how and whether to address the points brought up in the thread. That's before we take into account the comments and criticisms in later posts.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 7, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I am a mod, and I'll agree with that. Please don't publicly denigrate other people as we discuss these issues.




you mean i can report posts again.


----------



## Psion (Feb 7, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> This goes doubly for an endeavor that is _already an economic loss_.  You want more work, and more changes, in a volunteer project that already doesn't support itself except by the goodwill of people donating their time?  Think about that for a second.  Really.




I often think this to myself, but it's a good moment to make it public.

Are the Ennies perfect? No. But from my perspective, I can see few changes that would have a good chance of genuinely improving the awards that wouldn't require a significant expenditure of money and/or freely volunteered hours.


----------



## fusangite (Feb 7, 2007)

I have done my best to follow eyebeams' arguments and I think that it comes down to a misinterpretation of Morrus's role. Morrus and E N Publishing have no role whatsoever in selecting judges or products. They function as sponsors for the awards, just as Gen Con does. 

To accuse Morrus of a conflict of interest is essentially the same as accusing Peter Adkinson of a conflict because his convention hosts and co-sponsors the ENnies. 

Let me assure you that Denise and the crew would welcome additional sponsors for the ENnies and would continue to do a fine job of maintaining the firewall between a non-partisan voting and adjudication process and the awards' enthusiastic sponsors.


----------



## Pramas (Feb 8, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> It involves a vast amount of honest work for no pay, and the reward you get is that people jump up and smear your name in every way possible.  They accuse you of dishonesty, bias, incompetence, and who knows what else.




This actually describes a typical day working for any RPG company and that's precisely why the ENnies are valuable. They are awards you can win and feel proud to have done so. I look forward to the ceremony every year. If any of you involved with the awards have taken the cautionary comments made by those of us who had a front row seat to the Origins Awards imploding as an attack on the integrity or excellence of the ENnies, let me assure you that was not the intent. The ENnies are something rare--an award that means something--and we want to see them secure and vital for years to come. That's where I'm coming from anyway.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 8, 2007)

mearls said:
			
		

> While you don't want to waste your time trying to make everyone happy, you also don't want to create a climate that silences dissent. I don't see that necessarily happening here, but it'd be a pity if people felt they couldn't speak up.




I think that having personal insults and an actual threat of violence from other posters pass without moderation indicates something that's not partucularly healthy about the climate of discussion regarding the ENnies. I can't think of another thread on this site where a comment like:



> if you wish to say otherwise, i'm gonna tell you where i'm gonna stick my foot for calling me a liar




Would ever be tolerated. 

As a result, while I started off in this thread disagreeing with Tim Dugger in almost every respect, I can now see some merit in what he has to say. This is specifically because of how this thread has played out.



> I also wanted to add one thing. I think some of Eyebeams' points relate to *potential* abuse, but I disagree that they demand an immediate address. Any award system can suffer abuse, but I think the Ennies are transparent and the people involved in running them have consistently shown they are trustworthy. I see some of his suggestions as change without clear improvement.




"Abuse" is a perjorative term. I don't think any individual is motivated to consciously adulterate the awards' integrity or would be, in most situations. While people have been seen fit to take comments personally, I have always discussed a *systemic* situation that has to do with the organization of the awards.

Currently, the judges have a regular proportion of people with non-trivial industry ties and repeat position holders. This isn't because individuals want to necessarily make sure Crothian or Joe G Kushner is always a judge or something. But it hardly explores the diversity of fan opinion to have the same double handful of people opt in and out year after year.

I have *never* claimed there was individual agency involved. Before you reply or polish off any of the stawmen who have been used to raggedness in this debate, remember that.

Changing the judge selection rules would lead to judging from a large, variegated pool of fandom. I would find arguments as to why this is not desireable to be, well, pretty *interesting* to read.

I can't say much more about the idea of organizational bias without the risk of it being conflated with accusations personal bias or conspiracy, when they are not the same thing. But I can't stop anyone from acting like they are, either.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 8, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think that having personal insults and an actual threat of violence from other posters pass without moderation indicates something that's not partucularly healthy about the climate of discussion regarding the ENnies. I can't think of another thread on this site where a comment like:
> 
> 
> 
> Would ever be tolerated.




You did call the integrity of the judge into question. I'm not surprised at least one of them took offense at that. It was an insulting thing to do. Disagreeing with their decision about putting SCAP in multiple categories is one thing, but that's not merely what you did. So, you might want to look in a mirror when complaining about insults in this thread.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 8, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> You did call the integrity of the judge into question. I'm not surprised at least one of them took offense at that. It was an insulting thing to do. Disagreeing with their decision about putting SCAP in multiple categories is one thing, but that's not merely what you did.




When did I call his integrity into question? Did I accuse him of lying, taking bribes or engaging in any form of unethical behaviour whatsoever?



> So, you might want to look in a mirror when complaining about insults in this thread.




I'll direct you to this:



> I have *never* claimed there was individual agency involved. Before you reply or polish off any of the stawmen who have been used to raggedness in this debate, remember that.




and this:



> I can't say much more about the idea of organizational bias without the risk of it being conflated with accusations personal bias or conspiracy, when they are not the same thing. But I can't stop anyone from acting like they are, either.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 8, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> When did I call his integrity into question? Did I accuse him of lying, taking bribes or engaging in any form of unethical behaviour whatsoever?




You said they fudged their rules and implied that they cooked things to get a specific desired result. If that isn't calling the panel's integrity into question, we must have different definitions of integrity. I mean really, how did you expect the judges from last year to take those comments?


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Feb 8, 2007)

Responding to the debate part:



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> ...
> Currently, the judges have a regular proportion of people with non-trivial industry ties and repeat position holders. This isn't because individuals want to necessarily make sure Crothian or Joe G Kushner is always a judge or something. But it hardly explores the diversity of fan opinion to have the same double handful of people opt in and out year after year.
> 
> ...
> ...




From what I understand judge candidates express their interest and post a brief bio and/or answer questions, then the public votes for the candidates they prefer.

As far as I can tell there are no official rules against anyone running (someone correct me if I'm mistaken).

But, generally, the people running have limited or no professional RPG industry experience.

After the nomination/declaration period is over, the vote is then thrown to the public and they decide who the five judges will be, now using the Single Transferable Vote system.

While one could also debate whether or not a representational system is best, or how many representatives such a system should have, I'll limit myself to one 2000+ year old intractable political debate per post.

****

Since the current format is purely democratic, I take it you're suggesting that there should be some additional formal rules restricting who can be nominated or nominate themself -- perhaps something like term limits, or some algorithm that prevents people with certain kinds of RPG industry experience from applying. But I'll let you present your own ideas since I'm not sure what restrictions you have in mind.

Certainly some rules might make sense. We don't want three-year-olds as judges. However, the process already seems to cover that sort of issue.

While I can understand a general desire to include a rule that prevents, say, Monte Cook from entering since that might lead to a bunch of professional full-time designers (with their superior name recognition) all being judges. However, I think any formal rule would either be too convoluted to parse, or rule out people like Piratecat who a large portion of the voting public would actually like to have the chance to vote for.

As it is, we have the fallback plan of simply relying on the voters to decide who's too much of an insider to allow as judge. And that seems to have worked pretty well so far.

As far as judge recidivism goes, we can at least come up with a clear rule regarding that. Perhaps no more than two or three years in a row, or some other format. I think ruling out any recidivism is a very bad idea, since past judging experience on such a major undertaking would be really useful.

However, I also don't see and haven't seen a problem with just letting the vote handle that part too. It's not like congress where there's a big monetary incentive to stay in, nor do ENnie judges build up massive campaign war chests gleaned from all their E-publisher swag that help ensure that they get re-elected.

That said, I am more open to some sort of rule that helps formalize the process of keeping new blood involved, maybe something like 4-5 years on necessitates 2 years off.


Finally, I do want to point out that any such rules are anti-democratic. They are ways of achieving through legislation what one cannot achieve by convincing the public (unless the public is given a chance to vote on the meta-rules). As such, there is at least some reason to think that the default position should be to simply let the voters decide.

When/if you rely to this please include some specific examples of the rules or restrictions you'd like added. It might be too late for this year but perhaps there could be a public vote on judge nomination rules for next year's ENnies.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 8, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> You said they fudged their rules and implied that they cooked things to get a specific desired result.




No, I said they fudged their own rules (which they did; ironically, Diaglo thought the double-dipping wasn't appropriate, indicating as much) but I did *not* say they cooked things to get a "desired" result. I didn't imply anything, but you did infer something fairly foreign to what I was saying.

The fact that you seem to consider some kind of physical threat appropriate behaviour is kind of interesting, though.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 8, 2007)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Responding to the debate part:
> From what I understand judge candidates express their interest and post a brief bio and/or answer questions, then the public votes for the candidates they prefer.
> 
> As far as I can tell there are no official rules against anyone running (someone correct me if I'm mistaken).




No, there are already rules against having industry involvement for a one year period. This is insufficient (I recommend at least 3 years and probably 5). The fact that this regulation exists indicates that it obviously isn't as difficult to ascertain involvement as many suppose.



> Since the current format is purely democratic, I take it you're suggesting that there should be some additional formal rules restricting who can be nominated or nominate themself -- perhaps something like term limits, or some algorithm that prevents people with certain kinds of RPG industry experience from applying. But I'll let you present your own ideas since I'm not sure what restrictions you have in mind.




There are already rules. My point is that I don't believe they support the apparent intent of the awards. My sggestions are:

1) An extended moratorium on industry involvement for judges to weed out candidates who have a delayed product in a release queue or who do regular annual or biannual work.

2) Rule that judges may not hold the post again for two years, to prevent elections from a static pool of nominees.



> While I can understand a general desire to include a rule that prevents, say, Monte Cook from entering since that might lead to a bunch of professional full-time designers (with their superior name recognition) all being judges. However, I think any formal rule would either be too convoluted to parse, or rule out people like Piratecat who a large portion of the voting public would actually like to have the chance to vote for.




As I said, this is a misrepresentation of the complexity of things, since the ENnies already have a rule about industry involvement. Any critique like the above extends to the rule as is, and as nobody to my knowledge has taken issue with the current rule I doubt it's created significant administrative problems



> As far as judge recidivism goes, we can at least come up with a clear rule regarding that. Perhaps no more than two or three years in a row, or some other format. I think ruling out any recidivism is a very bad idea, since past judging experience on such a major undertaking would be really useful.




I think the current pattern is not really acceptable. This is not because of any deficiencies in the judges. A three year limit doesn't change the pattern and unnecessarily bars former judges for life, which is why I suggest a two year waiting period before reapplying.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Feb 8, 2007)

Trying to keep the quoting to a minimum without sacrificing the core of the post:



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, there are already rules against having industry involvement for a one year period. This is insufficient (I recommend at least 3 years and probably 5). The fact that this regulation exists indicates that it obviously isn't as difficult to ascertain involvement as many suppose.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Regarding the particulars, I, personally, won't argue much over whether the RPG experience was limited to one or three years. My main concern would simply be to avoid conflict of interest. I'd want to make sure that none of the current nominees (as of this posting) are ruled out, assuming that there's full disclosure.

I do think that 1 year on two off wouldn't work. I've run a couple grad student conferences and for any group undertaking, experience is invaluable. The first year you screw everything up; the second you screw most things up; and the third year you start to get an idea of how things really work. Again, I'd probably go with 4 on/2 off as a limit.


That said, I already get to promote those rules by voting and telling others what I think. You can promote your guidelines or rules in the same ways.

Is there a compelling reason to formalize the rules further? Especially given that there will be people who disagree with both your and my set of guidelines.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 8, 2007)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Regarding the particulars, I, personally, won't argue much over whether the RPG experience was limited to one or three years. My main concern would simply be to avoid conflict of interest. I'd want to make sure that none of the current nominees (as of this posting) are ruled out, assuming that there's full disclosure.




The trouble with one year is that products are often planned up to two years in advance. Plus, you do have people who have low but regular working cycles, especially in layout and art.



> I do think that 1 year on two off wouldn't work. I've run a couple grad student conferences and for any group undertaking, experience is invaluable. The first year you screw everything up; the second you screw most things up; and the third year you start to get an idea of how things really work. Again, I'd probably go with 4 on/2 off as a limit.




Experience is the last thing that should inform fan judging if the idea is to be representative of fan interests.



> That said, I already get to promote those rules by voting and telling others what I think. You can promote your guidelines or rules in the same ways.




That's arbitrarily appealing to the vote. If the voting process was designed to also determine  policy directly, then there wouldn't be *any* rules, would there? Hell, there wouldn't even be judges, just three rounds of voting for noms, categories, then winners.

(In fact, such a system is perfectly workable. If you're serious about all democracy all the time, then you should argue to emove the judges. Arguing for the process as it is is not an argument in favour of the wisdom of the fans, but an argument that the fans are guided by policy X rather than Y.)



> Is there a compelling reason to formalize the rules further? Especially given that there will be people who disagree with both your and my set of guidelines.




Sure. What I've proposed is consistent with the stated goals of the awards. In this thread, Morrus talks about how he doesn't want industry interference. The virtue of the awards is that it's supposed to be by and for fans. I am confident that eliminating part-timers and repeat candidates will lead to more new faces with equally sharp insights. I'm disturbed at suggestions that fans need to be able to pick a past judge/past industry person. Why is that? If people think that there really are so few able potential judges, it actually shows *less* confidence in fandom, not more.


----------



## Settembrini (Feb 8, 2007)

I can understand eyebeamz objections, but I can´t really wrap my hand around how "the industry" is to be defined.
Is any lad with a pdf that is for sale in "the industry"?

I fear our hobby isn´t structured in a way that lends itself to a clear-cut distinction. I daresay the best one can do is to be totally open on the projects and companies one is involved with.

Take Jeff Rients: He´s totally a fan, but helped a buddy of his to collect Traveller Timeline Material. Now that timeline is on a CD product by FarFuture Enterprises. That would put Jeffs contribution in a 2006 publication. This truly is not an "industry", is it?

That way us fans can vote for the judge with our preferred bias or whom we think as being the best represantative of our fandom.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 8, 2007)

Settembrini said:
			
		

> I fear our hobby isn´t structured in a way that lends itself to a clear-cut distinction. I daresay the best one can do is to be totally open on the projects and companies one is involved with.
> 
> Take Jeff Rients: He´s totally a fan, but helped a buddy of his to collect Traveller Timeline Material. Now that timeline is on a CD product by FarFuture Enterprises. That would put Jeffs contribution in a 2006 publication. This truly is not an "industry", is it?




It depends on whether he got paid in something other than comps. I'm sure the awards admins can handle vague areas as well as they did in the past. It's merely the duration of the rule that's too short.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 8, 2007)

In terms of distancing the Ennies from En World, I've mentioned in the past that perhaps staff reviewers and other staff members shouldn't be allowed to run.

I've also mentioned 'term limits' to prevent the same faces from cropping up time and again.

One of the problems with the 'ties' to industry though, is in a digital age, what is a 'release' date on PDF products which tend to be evergreen and prone to revision far more than print titles?

For example, what would be appropriate if a print compilation of old Pyramid stuff came out with material I wrote ten years ago? Is that 'new' material or old?

What about a revised PDF using OGC material someone wrote for a charity project or something along those lines?


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 8, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> In terms of distancing the Ennies from En World, I've mentioned in the past that perhaps staff reviewers and other staff members shouldn't be allowed to run.
> 
> I've also mentioned 'term limits' to prevent the same faces from cropping up time and again.
> 
> ...




Are you getting paid for the new compilation? If not, then no. Given the prevalnce of work for hire, recompilations usually don't occasion any further payments, so it's not a  issue.

Plus, of course, increasing the mandatory non-industry period for judges actually solves this problem by putting eligibility outside the lifecycle of a typical product.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 8, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> In terms of distancing the Ennies from En World, I've mentioned in the past that perhaps staff reviewers and other staff members shouldn't be allowed to run.




Funny - I've always thought that the staff reviewers would make the best judges.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 8, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Funny - I've always thought that the staff reviewers would make the best judges.




Fan reviews are a standard practice. Does Pyramid even pay for reviews any more?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 8, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Funny - I've always thought that the staff reviewers would make the best judges.




We do.   

I'm talking about an 'apparent' conflict of interest. Just because we have the skill sets doesn't mean that other entities don't see a conflict of interest as we're reviewers of a 'd20' site (althought several of us do reviews on other sites like RPG.net). and this may be seen as a conflict of interest or just keeping En World and the Ennies too close together.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 8, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Fan reviews are a standard practice. Does Pyramid even pay for reviews any more?




I haven't done any reviews for years because I found the word count too stiffling. And I was lazy and hated editing my stuff before sending it in. Last time I think it was $25 per review.


----------



## BSF (Feb 8, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Your familiarity with real world organizations should make you similarly familiar with the problem of candidates taking their places simply because there are no other real alternatives or when candidates simply take turns at a set or shift through a static, repititious slate for the sake of appearances.




Fair enough, but I know that when I nominated myself a few years back to be a Judge, I was in the field with roughly 2 dozen people.  I said my piece, I didn't garner enough votes to be a judge.  

I didn't view that as the option of no other candidates being available.  Nor was it really candidates taking turns.  Those judges were voted into position over a field of many.  

One thing that does seem to be occurring is that fewer people are interested in judging.  I do see that as a problem because it begins to narrow the field.  The interesting question then boils down to why are there fewer judges nominating themselves?

A few years back I wanted to give back to the community and hopefully have fun in the process.  But I knew it would take quite a bit of time.

For Gen Con 2006 I knew I would be too busy at (RL) work to do a good job as a judge, so why nominate myself?  But there is another reason at work here, for me.  I have watched enough of these conversations that I begin to see what hassle is also associated with being a judge.  Mind you, I am not implying that well presented concerns and observations shouldn't be part of the process, they should.  But over the years there have been a lot of allegations of bias, rubber stamping, and cries that the system won't work.  I know that if I put in the time it takes to be a good judge, I would react poorly to such accusations.  I could rationally brush them off, but it would suck a lot of the fun out of the process for me.   That mentallity influences me as well.  Why would I want to put all that time into the process when I will have other people accuse me of ill intent and poor handling of a volunteer post?

You can't expect that everyone will be happy all the time.  And if you volunteer to judge, you had better be prepared for these accusations.  Right now we have 12 candidates on the nominee page.  We have a few days to garner more candidates.  Will it happen?  Or is the field shrinking?  And if it is shrinking, why?


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 8, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> We do.
> 
> I'm talking about an 'apparent' conflict of interest. Just because we have the skill sets doesn't mean that other entities don't see a conflict of interest as we're reviewers of a 'd20' site (althought several of us do reviews on other sites like RPG.net). and this may be seen as a conflict of interest or just keeping En World and the Ennies too close together.




I guess.

I'd have no problem with an ongoing judge panel of you, Psion, Crothian, John Cooper, and TB.

Your styles are different enough that if the 5 of you all have a great opinion of a product, it's probably fantastic.

I'd almost like to see a side-category in the ENnies that has a "EN World Staff Reviewers' Gold Choice" designation (or something like that).


----------



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2007)

BSF said:
			
		

> One thing that does seem to be occurring is that fewer people are interested in judging.  I do see that as a problem because it begins to narrow the field.  The interesting question then boils down to why are there fewer judges nominating themselves?




I used to worry that the judging panel would become too static, and I argued strongly about the system.  But so far, the evidence points to a rate of judge turnover that I find acceptable.

I used to worry that the panel would not be static, but would become repetetive.  Again, the  accumulated evidence has put that worry to bed.

However, that does not mean the judge elections have not been predicatble.  For the past... at least three or four years, I have been able to look at the field of potential judges, and accurately guess at least four out of the five who will win.  There have been relatively few "dark horse" candidates winning.  That may have left many considering the job feeling that there's little reason to bother.

Opening up the field to other sites does not alleviate this feeling.  I would expect a candidate that posts a lot on RPG.net to be elected by people from RPG.net who support him.  While some folks may vote cross-board, I wouldn't expect many to do so.  Thus, someone considering taking part in the panel is still faced with the same quandry - if you aren't in the predictable head of the pack on your own board, there's little point in trying.

In theory, one might look at a narrow field as a bit of a problem.  But, it seems to me the voters have not been _using_ a wide field.  Those who win are, if I recall correctly (and someone please correct me if I am wrong!), usually in a small, tight pack with many votes.  Outside that small, predicatble pack, the candidates get markedly fewer votes.  

If the voting were spread more broadly, I'd worry about a narrowing field.  But, so long as the predictably-winning pack is present, the voters are going to get who they want anyway.  Historically, the outliers have seemed to have little impact on the race, so as a practical matter the awards don't lose anything if they don't participate.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2007)

I have a feeling this year there are going to be some changes in the Judges.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think that having personal insults and an actual threat of violence from other posters pass without moderation indicates something that's not partucularly healthy about the climate of discussion regarding the ENnies.




Over four years, what part of, "if you have a problem with moderation, take it up in e-mail with a moderator, don't discuss it in the thread," has failed to register to you?

That being said, this is important enough for me to address here.  In saying the above, you seem to have made a couple of errors:

1)You mistake "current weather" for "climate".  One thread that goes haywire does not a pattern make.

2)You seem to miss the fact that the storm here is largely the fault of every poster in the thread - _yourself included_. 

Please allow me to be blunt: A few folks who disagree with how the ENnies operate came in here, but they weren't looking to discuss, or suggest.  They were looking to dictate terms - they know the truth, they know the fixes, and everything else is wrongity, wrong-wrong, with wrong sauce.  The methods and manners used were, intentionally or not, well-designed to strike an emotional chord in many of those with other opinions, putting them on the emotional defensive.

So, now we have an emotional interchange, and everyone removes a goodly amount of their reasoning ability, and drops it in the wastebasket.

The moderators are then stuck.  We recognize badgering as a form of incivility, and that a few folks in here are guilty of it.  But if we use that to moderate, we will be accused of "silencing teh troof!", which is less constructive than allowing the badgering to continue.  And, because they're being badgered, the folks on the other side get huffy and insulting.  But if we moderate them, then we allow badgering to become a viable strategy, which is also destructive.  The mods are darned if we do, and darned if we don't.  

So, all of you who are defending the current ENnies processes and methods - take care when you respond.  Most of you are effectively guilty of feeding the fire.  Note that there is no such thing as a "sense of humor" in this thread.  If you cannot be polite, if you feel too strong an urge to be witty, or sly, or get a dig in, or if your emotions are otherwise engaged, you do more harm to your cause than good by responding.

And for the others (and I'm sorry eyebeams, but yours is the best recent example), recognize that in using phrases like "this is insufficient" or "this is unacceptable", you are inappropriately stating that you are the one who gets to determine overall acceptability - if you act as an authority when you aren't one, you are asking for problems.  Take to heart the fact that _you don't get to make the decisions, or dictate terms_.  If you are here to help, act like a volunteer, not a dictator.   Make your statements, maybe ask and answer some questions, and then allow the people with authority to decide.  If you don't have actual hard data, all you have is a plausible argument - recognize that as an opinion no better founded than anyone else's!

Someone has already gotten a tempban for taking this argument too far.  Please be advised that we are no longer terribly shy of more such.  If you feel any further need to discuss why we moderate this thread the way we do, _take it to e-mail_.


----------



## fusangite (Feb 8, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think the current pattern is not really acceptable. This is not because of any deficiencies in the judges. A three year limit doesn't change the pattern and unnecessarily bars former judges for life, which is why I suggest a two year waiting period before reapplying.



Eyebeams, first of all, I am kind of surprised that you have not replied to my previous post on this thread. It seems to me that much of your reasoning is a result of conflating the categories of awarding organization and sponsoring organization.

However, as to this point, I was specifically tasked two years ago with dealing with the problem of incumbency on the panel. After a lot of work, we have completely changed the electoral system from last year to this. It seems very presumptuous on your part to assume that the problems with elections held under a multi-member plurality system that showed interim results throughout the voting process will continue under an STV system with hidden results. Why don't you wait to see if the reforms we have already instituted work before proposing additional ones?

I believe that by instituting these reforms, we will weaken incumbency by, among other things, enabling anti-incumbent voters to concentrate their votes much more effectively. STV, as a system is known worldwide for having this property and is loathed by political insiders for exactly this reason. Australian and Irish legislators routinely attempt to abolish STV only to be quickly put in their place by voters. And nobody who deals with STV systems ever talks about the need for term limits because they seem totally unnecessary.

Rotation and/or absolute or consecutive term limits tend only to be instituted in jurisdictions that have highly pro-incumbent voting systems. If you want to talk about the flaws of the ENnies election system or suggest solutions, I recommend that you examine the system we have now, rather than continuing to try and fix a system we have abandoned.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 8, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Eyebeams, first of all, I am kind of surprised that you have not replied to my previous post on this thread. It seems to me that much of your reasoning is a result of conflating the categories of awarding organization and sponsoring organization.
> 
> However, as to this point, I was specifically tasked two years ago with dealing with the problem of incumbency on the panel. After a lot of work, we have completely changed the electoral system from last year to this. It seems very presumptuous on your part to assume that the problems with elections held under a multi-member plurality system that showed interim results throughout the voting process will continue under an STV system with hidden results. Why don't you wait to see if the reforms we have already instituted work before proposing additional ones?




I find it interesting that it is "very presumptuous" to critique a system whose openness is supposed to be its virtue.



> Rotation and/or absolute or consecutive term limits tend only to be instituted in jurisdictions that have highly pro-incumbent voting systems.




The ENnies use a demonstrably pro-incombent voting system, as witnessed by the presence of multiple incumbents on the roster once again.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 8, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I used to worry that the judging panel would become too static, and I argued strongly about the system.  But so far, the evidence points to a rate of judge turnover that I find acceptable.
> 
> I used to worry that the panel would not be static, but would become repetetive.  Again, the  accumulated evidence has put that worry to bed.




Does Teflon Billy wear a different disguise every year or something? It seems out of character for him.


----------



## kingpaul (Feb 8, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> The ENnies use a demonstrably pro-incombent voting system, as witnessed by the presence of multiple incumbents on the roster once again.



Ummm, the judges haven't been voted for yet. Its up to the electorate to vote them up or down.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> The ENnies use a demonstrably pro-incombent voting system, as witnessed by the presence of multiple incumbents on the roster once again.




I'm biased but I also think it might be because the Judges do a pretty good job


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Feb 8, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> That's arbitrarily appealing to the vote.




I don't quite understand what's wrong with appealing to a core value such as everyone gets their own vote, nor why appealing to it would be arbitrary.

I'm not talking here about some abstract principle of democracy, but the simple principle that in the vote we each get our say and we each get our own chance to convince others that our choice criteria are the best.

One reason we want to limit the number of rules restricting who can and cannot declare judge candidacy is that more rules shift power to the small group of people running the rules committee. Essentially, the committee's votes count for more than the rest of the public since the committee is able to limit the public's choices.



> If the voting process was designed to also determine  policy directly, then there wouldn't be *any* rules, would there? Hell, there wouldn't even be judges, just three rounds of voting for noms, categories, then winners.
> 
> (In fact, such a system is perfectly workable. If you're serious about all democracy all the time, then you should argue to emove the judges. Arguing for the process as it is is not an argument in favour of the wisdom of the fans, but an argument that the fans are guided by policy X rather than Y.)




I said earlier that I wanted to avoid the representative democracy discussion but since you're bringing it up I'll just mention briefly why I, as a voter, prefer it.

There's just too much stuff out there for me to look through it all. By voting for judges I'm able to delegate that choice to someone who's committed to devoting the time to looking through all the product and who I think would be good at it/do so honestly.

I could just vote directly, but then I'd miss out on a bunch of books that were excellent, but slipped below my radar.



> What I've proposed is consistent with the stated goals of the awards. In this thread, Morrus talks about how he doesn't want industry interference. The virtue of the awards is that it's supposed to be by and for fans. I am confident that eliminating part-timers and repeat candidates will lead to more new faces with equally sharp insights. I'm disturbed at suggestions that fans need to be able to pick a past judge/past industry person. Why is that? If people think that there really are so few able potential judges, it actually shows *less* confidence in fandom, not more.




That's perfectly fine, but take your reasoning to the voters and let them decide, instead of a rules committee.



> The ENnies use a demonstrably pro-incombent voting system, as witnessed by the presence of multiple incumbents on the roster once again.




I don't think a history of popular or well-respected members of the community demonstrates pro-incumbency in the voting *system*. At most it demonstrates pro-incumbency in the voters. 

Even then it simply makes sense that if I liked a candidate last year, then I'll probably like them again this year. I don't see why my liking and voting for someone in the past is a good reason that we should set up a rule specifically preventing me from voting for them in the future. Again, why can't I just make that decision myself?

This is also markedly different from U.S. elections, where the incumbent gets stamping privileges, builds up warchests, brings pork back to his constituents, and so on, which do give them significant advantages.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Does Teflon Billy wear a different disguise every year or something?




Nope.  But _my_ thoughts on incumbency are perhaps somewhat less stringent than yours.  His presence as a nominee, and even as a judge, gives me no distress.  As of this writing, it seems there are only two out of the ten current potential judges that are running again this year.  As it stands right now, we must have at least half the panel turn over. That's sufficient for my mind.  

Given how few of the other candidates have experience, I find myself hoping that at least one of those guys wins, if only to help get the new judges up to speed on how things are best done.  A completely greenhorn panel will have significant difficulties.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 8, 2007)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> I don't think a history of popular or well-respected members of the community demonstrates pro-incumbency in the voting *system*. At most it demonstrates pro-incumbency in the voters.
> 
> Even then it simply makes sense that if I liked a candidate last year, then I'll probably like them again this year. I don't see why my liking and voting for someone in the past is a good reason that we should set up a rule specifically preventing me from voting for them in the future. Again, why can't I just make that decision myself?




The main advantage an incumbent gets in any voting situation is a track record, assuming that track record is generally positive. For some voters, the fact that one of the candidates has done the job successfully before is a good incentive to vote for him or her again rather than go with a relative unknown. 
I don't see a problem with that since, if the track record were generally negative, that same track record would be a disadvantage.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 8, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And I know a few of the judges, like myself, dropped off stuff that we weren't going to keep to help fuel the massive oil, I mean, gaming , profits.



yes, i did too.

also to help the volunteers feel appreciated.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 9, 2007)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> I don't quite understand what's wrong with appealing to a core value such as everyone gets their own vote, nor why appealing to it would be arbitrary.




That's not it at all. If you really do want the vote to decide everything, then you should logically campaign for the abolition of judges. If you support the judging system you support the associated regulations, which means that it's inconsistent to appeal to voters to perform regulation-like activities.



> I'm not talking here about some abstract principle of democracy, but the simple principle that in the vote we each get our say and we each get our own chance to convince others that our choice criteria are the best.




Doesn't seem that way. You're arguing for that when it suits the status quo and standing for an antidemocratic element when it also suits the status quo (and that's your right, but it doesn't have the hallmarks of a consistent position). This sort of principle can't stand within the awards *as they are*, much less how they might be changed.

I'd be perfectly fine with the idea of abolishing judges entirely, myself. The tools are there to allow it.



> One reason we want to limit the number of rules restricting who can and cannot declare judge candidacy is that more rules shift power to the small group of people running the rules committee. Essentially, the committee's votes count for more than the rest of the public since the committee is able to limit the public's choices.




That power shift already exists. Rules are just as capable of limiting its influence as extending it. In fact, the incumbent ban would do just that. In essence, I'm only proposing one new rule and altering an existing rule. This is hardly cumbersome.



> There's just too much stuff out there for me to look through it all. By voting for judges I'm able to delegate that choice to someone who's committed to devoting the time to looking through all the product and who I think would be good at it/do so honestly.
> 
> I could just vote directly, but then I'd miss out on a bunch of books that were excellent, but slipped below my radar.




This invites the response that was used on Tim Dugger. If you or any other voter doesn't care to come to the site and make your choice, why should anyone give you a hand?

Yeah, that sucks, but it's the consequence of a rhetorical commitment to a democratic process.



> That's perfectly fine, but take your reasoning to the voters and let them decide, instead of a rules committee.
> 
> I don't think a history of popular or well-respected members of the community demonstrates pro-incumbency in the voting *system*. At most it demonstrates pro-incumbency in the voters.




Nah, I think it's systemic. For one thing, the current rules *do* look like they were designed to serve the needs of probable incumbents.



> Even then it simply makes sense that if I liked a candidate last year, then I'll probably like them again this year. I don't see why my liking and voting for someone in the past is a good reason that we should set up a rule specifically preventing me from voting for them in the future. Again, why can't I just make that decision myself?




Again, the logical conclusion to this line of argument is to just do away with judges. Lack of convenience is not accepted as a valid counterargument in other contexts, so it shouldn't be applied to this one.

But if the ENnies are to better function as a *general* fan-run awards instead of being tied to a clique *while* retaining judges, my suggestions are not onerous and would, in my opinion, considerable improve the degree to which the awards actually reflect fan preferences.

Frankly, the judging slate shouldn't require an STV system and multiple flamewars to move beyond a strong trend for incumbents. That fact that this apparently *is* driving this sort of thing is not a compliment to the awards system.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> This invites the response that was used on Tim Dugger. If you or any other voter doesn't care to come to the site and make your choice, why should anyone give you a hand?




Hmm?

The judging panel helps to do away with a 'brand recognition' bias.  If the voters vote directly on products, then in all likelihood, most of the voters will not have read most of the products they have the option to vote for.

If Product A is good, and a thousand people have read it; and Product B is excellent, and twenty people have read it; then Product A will receive many times the popular votes of Product B.

If Product A is good, and a thousand people (including the five judges) have read it; and Product B is excellent, and twenty people (including the five judges) have read it; then Product B will receive more judges' votes than Product A; people are more likely to have a look at a previously-unnoticed product that makes a judge's shortlist than a previously unnoticed product amidst a sea of other nominations, surely?

Should the awards reflect quality, or sales figures?

-Hyp.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> That's not it at all. If you really do want the vote to decide everything, then you should logically campaign for the abolition of judges. If you support the judging system you support the associated regulations, which means that it's inconsistent to appeal to voters to perform regulation-like activities.
> 
> Doesn't seem that way. You're arguing for that when it suits the status quo and standing for an antidemocratic element when it also suits the status quo (and that's your right, but it doesn't have the hallmarks of a consistent position). This sort of principle can't stand within the awards *as they are*, much less how they might be changed.




Coming from an academic philosophy background and knowing that you come from an academic philosophy background I'd think you'd understand that accusations of inconsistency seldom lead to constructive debate and typically just leave departments in shambles while everyone accuses everyone else of being a hypocrite, albeit in code-words.

I don't think it's logically impossible that a good system have limited rules regarding who can be a candidate, and yet still have those candidates do the stuff that candidates do in representative democracies.

I also think it's possible for someone to believe the above, maybe even mistakenly, but certainly honestly.



> This invites the response that was used on Tim Dugger. If you or any other voter doesn't care to come to the site and make your choice, why should anyone give you a hand?
> 
> Yeah, that sucks, but it's the consequence of a rhetorical commitment to a democratic process.




First, I didn't make that response to Tim Dugger. 

Second, what I was saying is that I don't have the time to devote two or more full time weeks to poring over scores of RPG books that came out over the last year. That's very different from spending a few minutes to half an hour going through a website to vote for your choices.

Is that an unreasonable distinction?


----------



## diaglo (Feb 9, 2007)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Second, what I was saying is that I don't have the time to devote two or more full time weeks to poring over scores of RPG books that came out over the last year.




it is only the rpg products submitted that you have to review.

but still that is a lot.

i think we got 214+ last year.

i know i took at least several hours each day just reading the products. i also had to write notes and critiques.

if a full time week is 40 hours. try at least 6 full time weeks for the reading alone and you have a better idea.

by late may/early june it was a mad house at my place trying to get my notes in order while still receiving product to review.

edit: it is reading for comprehension not just reading. you have to be able to use this stuff in play.


----------



## Erik Mona (Feb 9, 2007)

I'd like to jump in at this late hour to announce that the ENnie Award-winning Shackled City Adventure Path is still available for purchase at Paizo.com. 

--Erik


----------



## fusangite (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> The ENnies use a demonstrably pro-incombent voting system, as witnessed by the presence of multiple incumbents on the roster once again.



This year we are using a voting system different from the one we used for the previous 6 elections. You cannot infer anything about the system we have switched *to* by observing the system we have switched *from*. We switched from Multi-Member Plurality to STV. 

You are trying to use your ignorance of the new voting system as a weapon here. The fact that you have not bothered to figure out the difference between the system we have abandoned and the one we have now is not a point in favour of the position you are staking out.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 9, 2007)

In looking over this thread, I find that it is getting increasingly difficult to tell what the positions of the particulars are. At this point, I think it might be appropriate to call for those people who have an issue with the process to succinctly and specifically state what those problems are. In a lot of debates like this one, we see problems because we don't clearly define what the problem is to begin with. I think I know what the problems are, but I think it would really help get something accomplished if we could get them out into the open without the hyperbole. I know everyone thinks they know what's being argued, but we have had enough posts with "you said X" followed by "no I didn't," to make this warranted.

Feel free to copy and paste your problems from earlier in the thread, but let's get the specifics on the table so that they can be addressed substantively. That way we can see what the real issues are and then move on to what the ENnies are supposed to be about.

Any takers?

--Steve


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 9, 2007)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Coming from an academic philosophy background and knowing that you come from an academic philosophy background I'd think you'd understand that accusations of inconsistency seldom lead to constructive debate and typically just leave departments in shambles while everyone accuses everyone else of being a hypocrite, albeit in code-words.




I'm not really interested in mudsligning. But if you're arguing on the basis of a certain set of values shouldn't those values inform a position about the whole policy?

You're exhorting me to trust the voters. My reply is that you can trust the voters all the way to getting rid of the judges -- and all of the sudden, the primacy of voter rights seems to erode. If this restriction sits with you in principle, and the current restrictions also sit well with you, it is difficult to see how slight adjustments to them -- since they already exist -- would suddenly be a problem.



> I don't think it's logically impossible that a good system have limited rules regarding who can be a candidate, and yet still have those candidates do the stuff that candidates do in representative democracies.




Representative democracies include legal and social consequences that extend to candidates' public lives that are not even vaguely approximated by gaming awards.



> First, I didn't make that response to Tim Dugger.




I didn't say you did. But an argument based on making the awards more convenient is related to a chunk of other arguments that people have argued against vigorously,



> Second, what I was saying is that I don't have the time to devote two or more full time weeks to poring over scores of RPG books that came out over the last year. That's very different from spending a few minutes to half an hour going through a website to vote for your choices.
> 
> Is that an unreasonable distinction?




I think it overstates things. No judges doesn't obligate gamers to study all the books themselves. Gamers can simply give props to the products they've encountered and enjoyed. In fact, the latter seems like a much more representative mirror of the hobby than having products go from a publisher to a judge without there being anything resembling the normal process of purchasing and appeciating rpgs.

If you *do* have judges, then that means it's desireable to come up with mechanisms to make sure they resemble a broad range of authentic fan responses. Having a broad range means it's certainly less desireable to have incumbents. Having "expert" repeat judges doesn;t have any parallel in ordinary fan experience at all.


----------



## Erik Mona (Feb 9, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Feel free to copy and paste your problems from earlier in the thread, but let's get the specifics on the table so that they can be addressed substantively.





I was disappointed that the pre-show party ran out of cheese cubes last year. Until this gross injustice is addressed Paizo Publishing will not deign to participate in these broken awards.

--Erik


----------



## Treebore (Feb 9, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> I was disappointed that the pre-show party ran out of cheese cubes last year. Until this gross injustice is addressed Paizo Publishing will not deign to participate in these broken awards.
> 
> --Erik




Drinking some Bacardi tonight?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 9, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> I was disappointed that the pre-show party...




Erik, please review the moderatorial request earlier in the thread:


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> So, all of you who are defending the current ENnies processes and methods - take care when you respond. Most of you are effectively guilty of feeding the fire. Note that there is no such thing as a "sense of humor" in this thread. If you cannot be polite, if you feel too strong an urge to be witty, or sly, or get a dig in, or if your emotions are otherwise engaged, you do more harm to your cause than good by responding.




Thanks.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Erik Mona (Feb 9, 2007)

Ok, ok, Paizo will participate. That part was snark.

But I was disappointed there weren't more cheese cubes. They were delicious.

--Erik


----------



## billd91 (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think it overstates things. No judges doesn't obligate gamers to study all the books themselves. Gamers can simply give props to the products they've encountered and enjoyed. In fact, the latter seems like a much more representative mirror of the hobby than having products go from a publisher to a judge without there being anything resembling the normal process of purchasing and appeciating rpgs.
> 
> If you *do* have judges, then that means it's desireable to come up with mechanisms to make sure they resemble a broad range of authentic fan responses. Having a broad range means it's certainly less desireable to have incumbents. Having "expert" repeat judges doesn;t have any parallel in ordinary fan experience at all.




It sounds like you'd rather have best-seller, large publisher bias be introduced into the nominee selection process. But, since you've also inimated that the ENnies are too tied to ENworld (being a promotional tool), wouldn't that also virtually guarantee a strong d20-orinted bias as well?
I'd rather vote for judges, even with incumbancy, to review submissions from publishers of all size and sales success levels to try to find things of high quality. If I don't like the job the judge is doing, I can try to run to be one myself or convince other voters to support another candidate.
High sales volume is its own reward, awards for quality should be something different. The awards shouldn't mirror exactly what's going on in the marketplace. They should reflect things going on in design and writing and go to where good and exciting things are happening even if the marketplace doesn't endorse them.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Some of the judges have industry ties. And they fudged the rules for their own categories with Shackled City. If you believed otherwise on the latter, you wouldn't have voted against including it, would you?




that's not what i said.
nor what i voted for or against.
go reread what i said.

edit: by the way you got your wish. i won't be running this year


----------



## SteveC (Feb 9, 2007)

DaveyJones said:
			
		

> that's not what i said.
> 
> edit: by the way you got your wish. i won't be running this year



This is regrettable. I think you brought a different perspective to the nomination process and made the entire awards more fun. I hope you'll consider it again in the future.

--Steve


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 9, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> It sounds like you'd rather have best-seller, large publisher bias be introduced into the nominee selection process. But, since you've also inimated that the ENnies are too tied to ENworld (being a promotional tool), wouldn't that also virtually guarantee a strong d20-orinted bias as well?




I'm not really concerned with a d20 bias. After WotC everybody's in the same boat, and WotC (or any company) can still choose to not participate. If you get information from the companies ahead of time (which is already done) and post which products are ineligible, the remainder will reflect a bias toward games that sell, but that's not a big deal. 5 or so noms per category should cover that. I think there would be some advantages with respect to companies like SJG and Palladium, which have significant fandoms that are not at all represented by the awards.



> I'd rather vote for judges, even with incumbancy, to review submissions from publishers of all size and sales success levels to try to find things of high quality. If I don't like the job the judge is doing, I can try to run to be one myself or convince other voters to support another candidate.
> 
> High sales volume is its own reward, awards for quality should be something different. The awards shouldn't mirror exactly what's going on in the marketplace. They should reflect things going on in design and writing and go to where good and exciting things are happening even if the marketplace doesn't endorse them.




Now you're second-guessing the fans. If fans of a lesser-known product feel sufficiently strongly about it, they'll submit in a higher proportion than fans who just went through the motions with a popular brand. Why can't fans just do the noms themselves?

If that's unworkable, then again, the ball bounces back to admitting that judges have a regulatory, non-democratic function, which means that tinkering with the parameters of that doesn't violate the principles of the awards at all.


----------



## fusangite (Feb 9, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Ok, ok, Paizo will participate. That part was snark.
> 
> But I was disappointed there weren't more cheese cubes. They were delicious.



They were but they cost the earth. They ended up costing something like $3 per cube given what we paid.

The sage darby lasted way longer than the other cheese. Did you include this in your calculations?







			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Representative democracies include legal and social consequences that extend to candidates' public lives that are not even vaguely approximated by gaming awards.



Really? I thought the consequences were pretty similar. The main one is not being re-elected. 







> If you *do* have judges, then that means it's desireable to come up with mechanisms to make sure they resemble a broad range of authentic fan responses. Having a broad range means it's certainly less desireable to have incumbents.



Agreed. That's why we have changed the voting system to remove the system-based bias that existed in favour of incumbents.

I guess what I am not grasping is why you are demanding additional changes when you have yet to see what this round of changes has delivered.


----------



## FickleGM (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Now you're second-guessing the fans. If fans of a lesser-known product feel sufficiently strongly about it, they'll submit in a higher proportion than fans who just went through the motions with a popular brand. Why can't fans just do the noms themselves?




Proportion of fans != Proportion of voters.  All the fans of a lesser-known product may not equal 5% of the fans of a better-known product.  The lesser-known product would be at an extreme disadvantage, regardless of quality.


----------



## Wystan (Feb 9, 2007)

I will post my short overview.....

1. I have heard of ICE, I have looked at their products. I have never used one of their products, but I did vote for one due to seeing it here at ENworld and liking what I read that they produced. (I actively reported one poster for snarkiness towards ICE earlier in this mess). I did not like the snarkiness of the ICE representative where he said (Paraphrased) "your award is bad because you make the rules, I want to make rules too and until I can I am going home, call me when I can make rules".

2. I am not truely a published industry person but I have a credit on some small PDF's and have been paid for 2 others that have yet to see print. I think I have made maybe $50 total. However I would not be able to be a judge as one of them was a Seeds PDF that was produced this year.

3. The ENnies (Notice the Capital EN there) is an EN award run by the owner of ENworld and is done at a net Loss for him/ENworld.

4. I see new items when I check the ENnies voting as it is not just a popularity contest. The judges read books I have never ever heard of and would have never heard of if they did not nominate it as one of their top 5. This shows me that the smaller publishers have a chance. 

5. D20 bias....I am playing Vampire in a weekly game right now, have a LOVE for Top Secret SI, started with V&V, Own at least 10 different RPG systems including Shadowrun, Spycraft, Top Secret SI, Hero, Gurps, Paladium...etc. I play and read all of these but D20 seems to be the most common, why, it is the most prevalent. It is the easiest to find player for, and it has the most material. Notice that no-where in there did I say it was my favorite. 

6. Voting.....I like the system as it is, codified rules in the RPG industry is a BAD IDEA, we are a community of rules lawyers... Any RULE can and will be used to play the system, so a game book must have 42 pages of Setting to be a setting book and 40 pages of adventure to be an adventure book and 24 pages of Races to be a Races book, well there is a possible 3 category book from EVERY publisher next year that wants to see their name in multiple categories.

7. Friendliness/Snarkiness - I have been on ENworld a lot longer than the date next to my name implies, I have been here since 3.0 was basically a well known to be true Rumor. I see many many instances of people arguing in this thread that you would not normally see, but I feel that the mod's have done a good job of keeping it to a set (LOW) level of snarkiness considering some of the attitudes here. ENworld is just about the most friendly forum I have ever seen. 

I guess I rambled a lot, but I wanted to show what a FAN thought of the ENworld ENnies process.

Thanks
Bill C.
Wystan
Relian
Thuran
(possibly others)


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 9, 2007)

Gabriel said:
			
		

> Proportion of fans != Proportion of voters.  All the fans of a lesser-known product may not equal 5% of the fans of a better-known product.  The lesser-known product would be at an extreme disadvantage, regardless of quality.




Given that the basic release numbers for products beneath the third tier is a couple of thousand, at 5% of that you're getting products with sales of maybe 200-500 -- even less. If he total purchasers of a single game are at 500 or less, you're talking about awards for beinging something to the hobby, since a game should actually be in someone's *hands* to actually affect the hobby. You're talking about charity.

Plus in practice, judges usually vote for popular sellers in their segments anyway.

That said, if judges truly represent fans, then the popularity-contest aspect should be replicated, but you're saying it is not. That implies the judges are not so representative. If you think that's a good thing, then you're not making an argument for the validity of fan opinions.

What it comes down to is that there are two ways to have a procedure that represnts fan interests:

1) You can regulate judging to such an extent as to encourage looking at products from a diverse set of perspectives (which is not served by incumbency) and from the POV of a typical gamer (also not served by incumbency and not served by overly lax industry tie rules).

2) You can get rid of judging entirely and resolve the awards based on multiple rounds of fan submissions, restricted only by the desire of publishers to participate or not. Sounds good to me.

If fan interests are *not* really at the heart of things? Yeah, there's all kinds of crazy things you can do. I just don't care for those, just as I don't care for the creeping idea that someone can "get better" at being a fan judge. While it certainly suits commercial interests to encourage the idea that there are "true fans" in any hobby or interest, I'm not sure it promotes the idea of an open and accessible hobby. I care much more about the opinions of the guys who play once a week than dedicated collectors and commentators -- and so should the hobby, in my view.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> That said, if judges truly represent fans, then the popularity-contest aspect should be replicated, but you're saying it is not. That implies the judges are not so representative. If you think that's a good thing, then you're not making an argument for the validity of fan opinions.




I can't speak for anyone else, but in my mind, the judge system reproduces the following effect:

Clearly not every fan is familiar with every product.  What would happen if we take five representative gamers and RPG fans and gave them every product of the year (at least every product submitted, of course), making sure that they read them all and took good notes, rather than simply relying on memories of the product?

In my opinion, the results that come out of the judging process are an excellent representation of the answer to that question.


----------



## Wystan (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> That said, if judges truly represent fans, then the popularity-contest aspect should be replicated, but you're saying it is not. That implies the judges are not so representative. If you think that's a good thing, then you're not making an argument for the validity of fan opinions.
> ...
> 2) You can get rid of judging entirely and resolve the awards based on multiple rounds of fan submissions, restricted only by the desire of publishers to participate or not. Sounds good to me.




See my 4th and 6th comments above (repeated here):


			
				ME said:
			
		

> 4. I see new items when I check the ENnies voting as it is not just a popularity contest. The judges read books I have never ever heard of and would have never heard of if they did not nominate it as one of their top 5. This shows me that the smaller publishers have a chance.
> ...
> 6. Voting.....I like the system as it is, codified rules in the RPG industry is a BAD IDEA, we are a community of rules lawyers... Any RULE can and will be used to play the system, so a game book must have 42 pages of Setting to be a setting book and 40 pages of adventure to be an adventure book and 24 pages of Races to be a Races book, well there is a possible 3 category book from EVERY publisher next year that wants to see their name in multiple categories.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 9, 2007)

DaveyJones said:
			
		

> edit: by the way you got your wish. i won't be running this year




The reason I voted for you last year was because you're a tough critic.  If you liked something, I knew it had to be good.

I hope you will run again in the future (though obviously the time commitment is a bear).


----------



## SteveC (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> What it comes down to is that there are two ways to have a procedure that represnts fan interests:
> 
> 1) You can regulate judging to such an extent as to encourage looking at products from a diverse set of perspectives (which is not served by incumbency) and from the POV of a typical gamer (also not served by incumbency and not served by overly lax industry tie rules).
> 
> 2) You can get rid of judging entirely and resolve the awards based on multiple rounds of fan submissions, restricted only by the desire of publishers to participate or not. Sounds good to me.



Right. Sounds like you want a different set of awards, then. Do let me know when you've set those up...I'd like to see what they end up being.

--Steve


----------



## Turjan (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> 2) You can get rid of judging entirely and resolve the awards based on multiple rounds of fan submissions, restricted only by the desire of publishers to participate or not. Sounds good to me.
> 
> If fan interests are *not* really at the heart of things? Yeah, there's all kinds of crazy things you can do. I just don't care for those, just as I don't care for the creeping idea that someone can "get better" at being a fan judge. While it certainly suits commercial interests to encourage the idea that there are "true fans" in any hobby or interest, I'm not sure it promotes the idea of an open and accessible hobby. I care much more about the opinions of the guys who play once a week than dedicated collectors and commentators -- and so should the hobby, in my view.



I see your reasoning, but that would be a boring award scene what I think you suggest. It looks like you propose giving all awards to D&D, perhaps with the occasional Exalted in between and perhaps a "New Game of the Year" award, like the one for Serenity. In principle, awards like that would be completely meaningless, and nobody would take them seriously. You can look at estimated sales figures to get those results. Perhaps, we could have the "Amazon RPG awards" or "Borders RPG awards"?

I like it when games like Artesia or Truth and Justice get nominated, even if they don't stand a chance of getting an award. Hardly any gamer has the time to look at as many games as the ENnie judges, which means that many good games will never be seen by most gamers. The procedure, as it stands at the moment, makes sure that games like that have a chance of getting a place in the spotlight, at least for a moment. In the next step, the fans decide via popularity, and games with low sales will never get an award.

I think that this specific mix of quality control and popularity makes for the most interesting awards. They are neither as meaningless as a simple acknowledgement of what everyone knows anyway, like a simple popularity contest, nor only of interest for some specialist, like indie awards (which I also find a good idea, but for a very specialized audience). I don't think it makes sense to throw this advantage of the ENnies away.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 9, 2007)

Turjan said:
			
		

> I see your reasoning, but that would be a boring award scene what I think you suggest. It looks like you propose giving all awards to D&D, perhaps with the occasional Exalted in between and perhaps a "New Game of the Year" award, like the one for Serenity. In principle, awards like that would be completely meaningless, and nobody would take them seriously. You can look at estimated sales figures to get those results. Perhaps, we could have the "Amazon RPG awards" or "Borders RPG awards"?




Nothing of the sort would happen, because not having judges doesn't ave get rid of submissions or consent to participate. WotC is staying out of the awards, so D&D products couldn't get nominated, and the existence of judges makes not one whit of difference. Simply using intelligent categories and mandating a minimum number of nominations should suffice, along with a system much like the one used to select judges.

In fact, the only way this can reduce variety is when a product is nominated for multiple categories, and the judging system is obviously not averse to that.

The only thing you'd lose are special judges awards, but then again, the current system doesn't guarantee them either.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 9, 2007)

Wystan said:
			
		

> See my 4th and 6th comments above (repeated here):




From my perspective, they appear to contradict each other. Your 4th comment is clearly in favour of the kinds of static rules that your 6th comment opposes. A rule where you get judges to do the noms for you is in fact a rule, and the judges already abide by certain rules. So minor adjustments to those rules don't seemto violate the spirit of the awards.

Your comments that people will "play the rules" in our community make examining them carefully seem even more significant.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 9, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I can't speak for anyone else, but in my mind, the judge system reproduces the following effect:
> 
> Clearly not every fan is familiar with every product.  What would happen if we take five representative gamers and RPG fans and gave them every product of the year (at least every product submitted, of course), making sure that they read them all and took good notes, rather than simply relying on memories of the product?
> 
> In my opinion, the results that come out of the judging process are an excellent representation of the answer to that question.




I don't think a group with a significant number of encumbents and a higher then average propertion wit industry ties are "representative" in this way. If judges are going to be at the heart of the awards, I would indeed like them to be as representative as practically possible.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I don't think a group with a significant number of encumbents and a higher then average propertion wit industry ties are "representative" in this way. If judges are going to be at the heart of the awards, I would indeed like them to be as representative as practically possible.



 But you will admit, at least, that barring your incumbent complaint (which I don't agree with, as the turnover rate seems fine to me, but I certainly respect your views there), the Judge system at its heart does successfully achieve the goal in my post, right?  I don't have the answer for you about your incumbent and insider issues, but at least we can agree, I hope, that I've satisfactorally answered  for you why I think that the Judge system (at its core principles) is actually more successful at representing the kind of fan vote that we want in a nomination (a vote informed by all the products of the year) than a popular vote nomination.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 9, 2007)

I disagree that the Judges are the "heart" of the awards. The fans are the heart of the awards. 

Judges are just facilatators. Separate the wheat from the chafe, so to speak. Let people know what products are pretty darn good, whether they have heard about them or not.

The only problem here is that in certain categories there was a lot of "good" product submitted. The judges themselves wished for a way to say, "Hey, this wasn't a top 5 product, but it was 9th, and I think everything in the top 10 should be given a serious look by fans interested in other product lines."

I believe that is why "Honorable Mention" was instituted, to try to raise awarenes about at least a few additional products.

Still, the "heart" of the ENnies is the fan vote, not the judges who whittle down the field to a manageable size.

I think the real fear about the judges is that certain publishers, and maybe even fans, think that if their product had made it to the final 5 they would have won. So they may think that Judges are why they lost.

Which is true. Judges do have that power. However that is why there is an odd number of judges. The 5th is a tie breaker on any vote. No one can abstain. Plus that is why the are voted for every year.

So yes, there is room for "unfairness" to occur, but until something better is suggested the ENnies has the best and fairest system going that I am aware of, that is a "Fan Award".

Plus the system is still evolving. Will a "codified judging guidleine" be created? Probably. It is going to be a detailed list of checkmarks. Not entirely though. Products being judged vary greatly, and new ones are showing up every year. So no set of guidelines will ever be "comprehensive".

So the best guideline I see being written is a core baseline of criteria by which to judge products by. It will still leave the final decisions wide open to each judges interpretation. So in reality, these guidelines are a false security blanket. It still comes down to the collective judges opinion. Opinions are always open to disagreement and argument.

So I see the current/past "judging" to be just as legitimate as any future years in which some kind of codified system is utilized. It is still, and always will be, Judges opinion that gets a product to the final 5 in each category.


----------



## Wystan (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> From my perspective, they appear to contradict each other. Your 4th comment is clearly in favour of the kinds of static rules that your 6th comment opposes. A rule where you get judges to do the noms for you is in fact a rule, and the judges already abide by certain rules. *So minor adjustments to those rules don't seemto violate the spirit of the awards.*
> 
> Your comments that people will "play the rules" in our community make examining them carefully seem even more significant.



 (Bold by me)

So minor changes to those rules, like say allowing a supplement to compete in two complementary categories should be allowed?

The rules as stand are that items are submitted to th judges who then determine categories and participants. The community then votes. There is no rigid rule structure between the two to specifically stop the 'Game Producers' from knowing how to manipulate the vote as it could change as needed every year.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 9, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> But you will admit, at least, that barring your incumbent complaint (which I don't agree with, as the turnover rate seems fine to me, but I certainly respect your views there), the Judge system at its heart does successfully achieve the goal in my post, right?  I don't have the answer for you about your incumbent and insider issues, but at least we can agree, I hope, that I've satisfactorally answered  for you why I think that the Judge system (at its core principles) is actually more successful at representing the kind of fan vote that we want in a nomination (a vote informed by all the products of the year) than a popular vote nomination.




I think it would be perfectly possible to base everything on fan votes without adding much more complexity, but yes, judges can still serve a useful purpose. I just happen to think that there's room for improvement from the perspective of it being a fan award.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 9, 2007)

Wystan said:
			
		

> (Bold by me)
> 
> So minor changes to those rules, like say allowing a supplement to compete in two complementary categories should be allowed?
> 
> The rules as stand are that items are submitted to th judges who then determine categories and participants. The community then votes. There is no rigid rule structure between the two to specifically stop the 'Game Producers' from knowing how to manipulate the vote as it could change as needed every year.




That's not an administrative rule *for* the judges, but something set up *by* the judges that proved to be problematic.


----------



## Erik Mona (Feb 9, 2007)

Proved to be problematic to whom?

--Erik


----------



## FickleGM (Feb 9, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> That's not an administrative rule *for* the judges, but something set up *by* the judges that proved to be problematic.



 I would say, "was thought by some to be problematic."

There are some who thought it was fine and may have complained the other way.  Because there is not consensus that SC was incorrectly placed, using the word "proved" is inaccurate.

EDIT: Erik, if you had used more words, you wouldn't have beaten my post...


----------



## SteveC (Feb 9, 2007)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Proved to be problematic to whom?
> 
> --Erik



Erik,
I am wondering much the same thing. I know there was a problem for some because of Shackled City last year, but the awards seem to be getting better each year. Unless I'm missing it, it looks to be a very vocal army of two doing the complaining. In Rasyr's case, I can see where he is coming from a bit. In Eyebeams case, please forgive me mods, I have no idea what point he's trying to make. 

One thing I'm wondering about for this year is Ptolus. It looks to be this year's 800 pound gorilla, since it is a once in a lifetime RPG product. I think it will be a sticky issue for the judges to consider this year.

--Steve


----------



## Rystil Arden (Feb 9, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Erik,
> I am wondering much the same thing. I know there was a problem for some because of Shackled City last year, but the awards seem to be getting better each year. Unless I'm missing it, it looks to be a very vocal army of two doing the complaining. In Rasyr's case, I can see where he is coming from a bit. In Eyebeams case, please forgive me mods, I have no idea what point he's trying to make.
> 
> One thing I'm wondering about for this year is Ptolus. It looks to be this year's 800 pound gorilla, since it is a once in a lifetime RPG product. I think it will be a sticky issue for the judges to consider this year.
> ...



 Actually, that's a good point--"What ideas do you have about Ptolus" is a pretty decent question to ask the judge nominees if that question hasn't already been asked.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 9, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> One thing I'm wondering about for this year is Ptolus. It looks to be this year's 800 pound gorilla, since it is a once in a lifetime RPG product. I think it will be a sticky issue for the judges to consider this year.




I just feel sorry for the Judges that haven't read it.  Hopefully if it gets entered it will be entered early and not late.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 9, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Actually, that's a good point--"What ideas do you have about Ptolus" is a pretty decent question to ask the judge nominees if that question hasn't already been asked.




I might make it a little more specific like what categories you'd place it in or something like that.    It is an interesting question, but only if the Judge candidates have bought and read it which may be unlikely.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Feb 10, 2007)

If Ptolus is entered and sweeps nearly every award, that'd make it the lamest ENnies since the year WotC participated. And the reasoning used to allow SCAP into the campaign setting category could be used to allow Ptolus into nearly every category.


----------



## Khairn (Feb 10, 2007)

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> If Ptolus is entered and sweeps nearly every award, that'd make it the lamest ENnies since the year WotC participated. And the reasoning used to allow SCAP into the campaign setting category could be used to allow Ptolus into nearly every category.




QFT

Which was one of the reasons why ICE is not participating in the ENnies.  Hopefully whatever action / change in judging rules that was mentioned in an earlier post (by Hellhound if memory serves me right) will stop such a problem from happening in the future.

Come to think of it ... ICE's 2 main reasons for not participating in the ENnies have not only been acknowledged, but are also being addressed to one degree or another.  Lets hope whatever changes are put into place will satisfy any players & publishers who might have the same concern as ICE.

Time will tell


----------



## billd91 (Feb 10, 2007)

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> If Ptolus is entered and sweeps nearly every award, that'd make it the lamest ENnies since the year WotC participated. And the reasoning used to allow SCAP into the campaign setting category could be used to allow Ptolus into nearly every category.




What if it truly deserves to win every category it's in? It might not make for an exciting ENnies ceremony, but why would that be lame?

For what it's worth, I don't see a reason a product that's a good setting AND a good adventure can't compete in both categories.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Feb 10, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> What if it truly deserves to win every category it's in? It might not make for an exciting ENnies ceremony, but why would that be lame?
> 
> For what it's worth, I don't see a reason a product that's a good setting AND a good adventure can't compete in both categories.




I was of the same mind.

I thought that the setting info in *Shackled City* was great stuff, and there was a lot of it...it wasn't like it was a huge stretch to decide to include it.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 10, 2007)

Ptolus is a big challenge for the ENnies indeed.

I look forward to seeing how it's resolved (presuming, of course, that it's even entered).

Based on last year's categories, about 2/3 of the awards could easily go to it.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 10, 2007)

I've heard from an indirect source that Monte has every intention of entering Ptolus.

About the only d20 category I think it can likely be beat in is art, maybe cartography. But organization, content, writing, etc... all appears to be very good. It won't be impossible to beat, but I can't think of a product put out in the same time frame that can beat it. Fortunately I am not aware of every product put out by everyone, so maybe one does exist.

I hope so. It will be a much more interesting ENnies if there is some neck to neck competition rather than a run away.

I expect Qin to take the art award. That book is beautiful. If there is a better book I haven't seen or heard of it yet.

I hope it is another tough year for the judges to nominate only 5, but Ptolus and Qin are going to set a high standard for everyone else to beat.

I have been hearing pretty encouraging things about BESM 3E, so it may turn out to be a good contender.

Plus fan voting can go in unexpected directions.

So I guess we will have to see if expectations are met, or blown out of the water by a surprise product or three.

I hope there are surprises. Predictable results are boring.


----------



## Bront (Feb 10, 2007)

I think that untill the entrants are in and the Judges have a chance to look at them, it's too soon to speculate about which products will win, let alone be nominated.


----------



## Bront (Feb 10, 2007)

CaptainChaos said:
			
		

> If Ptolus is entered and sweeps nearly every award, that'd make it the lamest ENnies since the year WotC participated. And the reasoning used to allow SCAP into the campaign setting category could be used to allow Ptolus into nearly every category.



Sweeps happen, and while it's not always the greatest, is it unfair for a product that fits into a catagory to be denied entrance into it because it's "in too many catagories it will likely win already?"  You're also judging it out of context of all other entrants, if it's even entered itself.  I'm not saying you should let any product into a catagory, but that's what you're electing judges for, to decide what catagories a product belongs in.  Given the issues of the past year, it is certaintly something that should be in the mind of any potential judges, but it is a two sided coin, and one that has to be considered on both sides.

This is why I don't think there should be blanket rules about what a catagory constitutes.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 10, 2007)

Bront said:
			
		

> I think that untill the entrants are in and the Judges have a chance to look at them, it's too soon to speculate about which products will win, let alone be nominated.





????

If you say so.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> It won't be impossible to beat, but I can't think of a product put out in the same time frame that can beat it. Fortunately I am not aware of every product put out by everyone, so maybe one does exist.




WW's Prometheus might have a chance.  It is very good and many people really like it.  If Necro enters Rappen Athuk which might be doubtful because it was popular (ie it might be sold out) and a limited release it might also have a chance.  If we can get Wizards to enter some of the Eberron books which I think is thew best stuff Wizards is doing it might also stand a chance.  GR's M&M books always seem to do well but I'm not sure if they had a break out hit of any of them this year.  Off the top of my head those might have a chance to equal Ptolus.


----------



## fusangite (Feb 10, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I don't think a group with a significant number of encumbents and a higher then average propertion wit industry ties are "representative" in this way. If judges are going to be at the heart of the awards, I would indeed like them to be as representative as practically possible.



Indeed. So, how could you make the judging panel more representative of the gaming community than by holding a proportional representation election with candidacy and voting open to absolutely everybody?

Are you really suggesting that restricting people's democratic choice of who represents them is more representative than giving people unfettered choice to determine their representatives as they see fit?


----------



## trancejeremy (Feb 10, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> WW's Prometheus might have a chance.  It is very good and many people really like it.  If Necro enters Rappen Athuk which might be doubtful because it was popular (ie it might be sold out) and a limited release it might also have a chance.





Eh - I'm not sure RA:Re did actually sell out.  As of like a month ago, I think Amazon.com stil lhad them.  And even if they did, there was only a 1000 of them.

That said, it might win on hype alone.  The real weak link in the Ennies (and this is something that just can't be solved) is that unless you actually own the products that end up being nominated, it's hard to vote on them (and really, impossible to vote on them fairly).  And I personally rarely own any of the ones that get nominated.

In fact, this year I really have to wonder if the winning entries will really be determined by ballot stuffing from fansites of a given product line, than anything else.  (I suspect that's how SR 4 won last year - it's got a fanatical, almost cultish fanbase at dumpshock)


----------



## Treebore (Feb 10, 2007)

SR4 was really that much of an improvement. The judges would not have nominated it if it wasn't. SR4 deserved its win. Way better than SR1, 2, or 3. Part of it was just over all presentation of the rules, such as the template type of characters.

The only nominations last year I questioned not winning was VII. Since I didn't actually read that stuff, just looked through it and read opinions about it, I couldn't really say.

Plus, bottom line, fan choice awards are a popularity contest. They are voting for what they like, not doing an analytical assessment of its quality. Thats what the judges do to narrow it down to 5 nominations.

I think if a product just gets nominated it deserves as much of a look at as the ones that win silver and gold.

Nominations are made by the judges based on technical merit more than "I like it". The fan vote is practically all about "I like it best".

So for the last two years I have realized this and looked at, read up on, and frequently bought runner up/nominations because I finally realized what being nominated versus winning the popular vote means. The judges are the electoral college and the fans are the "popular vote". Which one means the most?

I like to give them both about equal weight, since I can in this situation.

If I become a judge I may have a very different opinion from now on. I strongly suspect I'l give nominations more weight than popular vote.  Hopefully I will find out.


----------



## Psion (Feb 10, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> That said, it might win on hype alone.  The real weak link in the Ennies (and this is something that just can't be solved) is that unless you actually own the products that end up being nominated, it's hard to vote on them (and really, impossible to vote on them fairly).  And I personally rarely own any of the ones that get nominated.




I agree. Not much you can do about that short of buy all the products for all the voters. I don't think the ENnies budget will cover that. 

For some publishers who aren't positioned well in the market, the nomination is more telling than the vote. It's just the way it is.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 11, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Indeed. So, how could you make the judging panel more representative of the gaming community than by holding a proportional representation election with candidacy and voting open to absolutely everybody?
> 
> Are you really suggesting that restricting people's democratic choice of who represents them is more representative than giving people unfettered choice to determine their representatives as they see fit?




I'm not sure how PR is going to help much since the judges presumably aren't in or forming partisan blocs. I can see the value of the STV providing us with an instant run-off election so that each vote has weight, but I think we'd be better off calling it instant run-off rather than PR. PR just doesn't seem to be the meaningful description in this situation.


----------



## Bront (Feb 11, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> ????
> 
> If you say so.



I personaly intend to not go into potentialy judging with any preconcieved notions about what product might have a better chance to win than any other.  It's the fair and objective thing to do.

At least it is in my opinion.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 11, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Are you really suggesting that restricting people's democratic choice of who represents them is more representative than giving people unfettered choice to determine their representatives as they see fit?




Surely I am. Are you allowed to vote noncitizens for polituical office where you live? How about out of state or province candidates for state/provincial representations? Are politicians in your country allowed to make political decisions about corporations they have a direct financial interest in?

Oh yeah: Why didn't I hear about this particular "Up the people!" position when it came to the *current* restrictions, which by your reasoning are just as awful as anything I'm proposing? The choices are already "fettered." Having those regulations actually serve their purported purpose is not a big deal.


----------



## fusangite (Feb 12, 2007)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Surely I am. Are you allowed to vote noncitizens for polituical office where you live?



No. But I think the law is unnecessary. People in Canada lose votes over being dual citizens; I cannot imagine somebody being electable if they were not a citizen. I don't foresee a scenario where this would be allowed to happen.







> How about out of state or province candidates for state/provincial representations?



They are allowed to run usually but not allowed to vote. I think this is a good system; non-residents tend to have a tough time winning seats, even if they are running for a major party. As a result, this phenomenon is rare. When it does happen, the individual tends to be a very qualified and prominent opinion leader. The man who currently serves as deputy leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, like a high profile Conservative candidate in a recent election, was actually residing in the United States at the start of the election in which they were running. 

So, generally, I do not see the need to use legislation to restrict voters' choices for their own good. Such legislation is offensive, paternalistic and anti-democratic. The only reason it is not struck down more frequently is because the only people it disqualifies are people who would be unlikely to get elected anyway.

But these situations are not, in any case, analogous. You are proposing to micro-manage voter choice to a much greater extent by instituting such things as term limits. Your question, above, is analogous to asking, "Should people who don't play RPGs be allowed to run?" And my position is, "Of course; we can trust the voters not to choose them."







> Are politicians in your country allowed to make political decisions about corporations they have a direct financial interest in?



No. I support rules that disqualify people due to conflict of interest. And the ENnies already have such a rule -- one of the few restrictions on candidacy that I support.

But, again, this is not relevant. You are proposing to increase the current level of restriction of voter choice. The fact that I support the current level of restriction cannot be taken as a point in favour of your position.







> Oh yeah: Why didn't I hear about this particular "Up the people!" position when it came to the *current* restrictions, which by your reasoning are just as awful as anything I'm proposing?



I think that financial conflicts of interest are a special case and a form of candidacy restriction I favour. 

If we did not restrict candidacy on this basis, we would end up with a lot of negative campaigning as candidates who were not in conflict would have to point out which of their competitors were. With even one or two entries into the race by people in conflict, the whole tone of the race would change from a positive one to a negative one and the resulting depression in voter turnout would offset any benefits that would result from widening those eligible for candidacy. 

Similarly, unlike term limits, conflict of interest restrictions on candidacy and voting or candidacy are universal in mature democratic systems whereas term limits tend to be rare and more common in emerging democracies.







> The choices are already "fettered."



This is a tired kind of argument eyebeams; I expected a little better from you. These kinds of all-or-nothing propositions just don't fly. You are also not allowed to run your pet for the ENnies but that is neither here nor there. What we are debating is whether democracy is served by further restricting people's choices. And you have offered no positive argument for why it is; all you have done is harangued me for being some kind of hypocrite by constructing a series of all-or-nothing propositions.

I think the elections should be as free as is practical. And they are.


----------



## fusangite (Feb 12, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how PR is going to help much since the judges presumably aren't in or forming partisan blocs.



Proportionality is important if there are any minority opinions. For instance, in past years anti-incumbent voters have made up a significant bloc but because their votes are widely distributed, they have rarely counted much in the race. STV will allow these people to pool their votes more effectively, producing a more proportional result for them. Similarly, the capacity to concentrate votes will enable people who favour female nominees to do so more effectively.

Proportional representation is any system in which all votes count equally and in which, in a multi-candidate race, each candidate represents a different and distinct portion of the voters.







> I can see the value of the STV providing us with an instant run-off election so that each vote has weight, but I think we'd be better off calling it instant run-off rather than PR. PR just doesn't seem to be the meaningful description in this situation.



IRV is a form of majoritarian voting. It produces a single Condorcet winner. STV is a form of proportional representation -- all PR is is all votes counting equally and assigning representative spots that represent the diversity of views not the consensus thereof. When STV is used in elections that have party affiliations, the results are proportional, as evidences by recent elections in Ireland, Northern Ireland and Queensland, Australia. Tough as it initially is to wrap one's head around proportional representation, good PR systems like STV work without parties.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 12, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> But these situations are not, in any case, analogous. You are proposing to micro-manage voter choice to a much greater extent by instituting such things as term limits.




Actually, term limits are the sole new feature I am proposing, so I don't see how it's Awful Micromanaging.

Oh, and how are they not analogous, aside from you saying so? It is generally customary to provide supporting arguments for your position, instead of making your position, your argument.



> Your question, above, is analogous to asking, "Should people who don't play RPGs be allowed to run?" And my position is, "Of course; we can trust the voters not to choose them."No. I support rules that disqualify people due to conflict of interest. And the ENnies already have such a rule -- one of the few restrictions on candidacy that I support.




Well, no, it's not analogous to this. It's a a response to an obvious trend in the awards that by its very nature cannot represent a wide variety of gamers. What you are essentially proposing is that a vague sentiment about democracy -- which the awards don't follow, anyway -- take precedence over actually examining them. The unfortunate thing about sentimental propositions is that they are by their nature extreme. If you have led the discussion to this position don't be surprised when there's revelant fallout.



> But, again, this is not relevant. You are proposing to increase the current level of restriction of voter choice. The fact that I support the current level of restriction cannot be taken as a point in favour of your position.I think that financial conflicts of interest are a special case and a form of candidacy restriction I favour.




Actually, by your sentimental democratic argument, they aren't special at all. After all, we should trust voters not to vote for these people, shouldn't we? From this position, where democracy is an end in of itself, there is not one whit of difference. It really is an all or nothing position.

Of course, if you have a utilitarian argument, then democracy is *not* an end, and it's okay to fool with it for the sake of improving the process. That's means you can restrict conflicts of interest, but guess what? The utilitarian argument doesn't filter out the idea that having an award where up to a third of the judges *aren't* repeats every year is probably not a bad idea.



> If we did not restrict candidacy on this basis, we would end up with a lot of negative campaigning as candidates who were not in conflict would have to point out which of their competitors were. With even one or two entries into the race by people in conflict, the whole tone of the race would change from a positive one to a negative one and the resulting depression in voter turnout would offset any benefits that would result from widening those eligible for candidacy.




So what? And how would this depress voter turnout? That's an entire speculative statement and, I submit, probably incorrect speculation.

Hell, the awards probably have more diversity in large part *because of* this thread.



> Similarly, unlike term limits, conflict of interest restrictions on candidacy and voting or candidacy are universal in mature democratic systems whereas term limits tend to be rare and more common in emerging democracies.




You realize that an award is not much like a democratic government? And that many, many small scale democratic organizations, such as student unions and nonprofits, to limit incumbency?



> This is a tired kind of argument eyebeams; I expected a little better from you. These kinds of all-or-nothing propositions just don't fly.




This is your extreme position, not mine. You're all about democracy as an end. This *is* an extreme position. I have provided not one, but two workable systems, one of which would remove judges and be far more democratic than anything you seem prepared to consider. If your position is out of utility, then changing one rule and adding another are trivial.

The feeling I get from you -- and from *many* of the rest of you -- is that you're most interested in supporting some abstract concept of the awards and it's "good name," as if I'm staging some unruly assault on either.



> You are also not allowed to run your pet for the ENnies but that is neither here nor there.




Strawman *and* reductio ad absurdum.



> What we are debating is whether democracy is served by further restricting people's choices. And you have offered no positive argument for why it is; all you have done is harangued me for being some kind of hypocrite by constructing a series of all-or-nothing propositions.




You've merely refused to identify such. I've made it clear that I believe the awards are best served by having  fresh candidates with absolutely no paid industry ties for a significant period (instead of the unworkable year), and you've made it clear that proposing such really hurts your feelings. I am only responsible for *one* of these things.

The funny thing about appeals to democracy is that they are *meaningless* without talking about the good it does. And once you admit utility is a factor you must consider all things that might improve utility. You either took this extreme position yourself or took a utilitarian position, didn;t explain it, and wouldn't engage other utilitarian arguments. If you wanted to stall and damage meaningful discussion, that's a great way to go about it, but maybe you're just making a mistake. I really don't know.



> I think the elections should be as free as is practical. And they are.




Do you actually think you have formulated the perfect form of the awards? Perfect? Really? Because that's what it sounds like.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 12, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I cannot imagine somebody being electable if they were not a citizen. I don't foresee a scenario where this would be allowed to happen.




How about if they were not a _natural-born_ citizen?

I know it's not a Canadian question, but would Arnold have a shot?

-Hyp.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 13, 2007)

Hmmm, because of previous posts by pro-HARP gamers I had pretty much crossed it off of the list of games that I might be interested in. I may be missing out of something good as a result, but I have, in the past, found the more militant fans of certain game systems so annoying as to put me right off the game. (GURPS being the number one instance.) And I say this in spite of having some very old ICE stuff, and have fond memories of even older ones (The Iron Wind, anyone?).

I gather that I have been lucky not to meet rabid D20 players, and I hope that luck continues. At this point I have enough invested in both money and time that I would be unlikely to relegate the game to the dustbin, but.... Please folks, don't be quite so rabid in defense of your games, it serves as anti-advertising. 

Don't complain that 'No one voted for/nominated [insert system here] so I am going to take my bat and ball and go home!' It comes across as unprofessional, and smacks of sour grapes. Sometimes it is simply that the game/product was too low profile, and other times it just faced stiff competition. I like All Flesh Must Be Eaten, but I do not recall it winning an ENNIE, or even being nominated. So, I shrug and move on. (And I could be wrong, I am unfamiliar enough with past winners of the ENNIEs that it might have swept the ENNIEs like Peter Jackson and the Oscars.  )

Anywho, I do not expect to see many non-D20 games being nominated for an award from a D20 site, any more than I expect a Siamese cat to win Best of Breed at a dog show. When they do get nominated, or win, they must be pretty darned astounding.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dextra (Feb 14, 2007)

I agree, it was quite the travesty.  Heck, I paid for that food ($900!!) and didn't get a taste!

Your post makes me wonder, though...  If we organized food again, would those planning on attending the ceremony pay for the priviledge of attending and having munchies and/or dinner?  Also, will people stay for the after-party?

Lest I come across as flippant or not addressing your concerns, please be advised that I have read and understood your concerns and thank you for your interest in the continuing improvements of the ENnie Awards.



			
				Erik Mona said:
			
		

> I was disappointed that the pre-show party ran out of cheese cubes last year. Until this gross injustice is addressed Paizo Publishing will not deign to participate in these broken awards.
> 
> --Erik


----------



## Treebore (Feb 14, 2007)

Dextra said:
			
		

> I agree, it was quite the travesty.  Heck, I paid for that food ($900!!) and didn't get a taste!
> 
> Your post makes me wonder, though...  If we organized food again, would those planning on attending the ceremony pay for the priviledge of attending and having munchies and/or dinner?  Also, will people stay for the after-party?
> 
> Lest I come across as flippant or not addressing your concerns, please be advised that I have read and understood your concerns and thank you for your interest in the continuing improvements of the ENnie Awards.




I would be happy to pay for my share ($10.00?) rather than have/know that you paid for it out of your own pocket. I assumed my auction money helped pay for that. Plus I helped the Necromancer auction get as high as it did, but didn't win. Actually I only helped get it above $200.00. Several others took it to the final winning bid.

So yes, if the ENnies auctions, etc... aren't paying for it I will be happy to keep you, or any other ENnies volunteer, from paying for it out of their private pocket.

Plus I will stay for the after party this time. I didn't know about the after party until after I had made other plans.


----------



## Dextra (Feb 14, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I agree. Not much you can do about that short of buy all the products for all the voters. I don't think the ENnies budget will cover that.
> 
> For some publishers who aren't positioned well in the market, the nomination is more telling than the vote. It's just the way it is.




At least last year (and I hope the trend will continue), we offered publishers the chance to get a link to a product sample, put up cover shots as well as brief descriptions of each product in the hopes of educating fandom.  Not only did it give fans a chance to learn more about the products in the hopes of making a better-informed decision, but it also served as a tool to get the word out about some truly excellent products.


----------



## Dextra (Feb 14, 2007)

I pay for all expenses not covered by Gen Con or EN World, like extra trophies, the framed certificates, medals, booth dressing, flyers, DJ equipment, bartenders, food, etc.  Then afterwards I'm reimbursed by the fund raising efforts.  Unfortunately, if product doesn't sell in auctions, I'm left with a pile of product and not much money.

Fortunately the fund raising (in large part the Dream Date Auctions) paid me back almost in full, and my FLGS (Fandom II in Ottawa I loooooooove you) picked up a lot of the 6th pile stuff, so I'm not out too much!

Anyhoo, I personally liked the idea of a dinner before the Awards, thus giving publishers who have to close up their booths and still find time to freshen up before the ceremony one less worry.  But I think that I would prefer to see those attending chipping in towards the cost of the food rather than have it covered entirely by the fundraising.  And I wonder how many people would attend if the food wasn't free...

Oh yeah- everyone reading this:  Friday night, after the ENnies.  Party. Be there.



			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> I would be happy to pay for my share ($10.00?) rather than have/know that you paid for it out of your own pocket. I assumed my auction money helped pay for that. Plus I helped the Necromancer auction get as high as it did, but didn't win. Actually I only helped get it above $200.00. Several others took it to the final winning bid.
> 
> So yes, if the ENnies auctions, etc... aren't paying for it I will be happy to keep you, or any other ENnies volunteer, from paying for it out of their private pocket.
> 
> Plus I will stay for the after party this time. I didn't know about the after party until after I had made other plans.


----------

