Quote:
Originally Posted by roguerouge  Okay, Meghan, I've read your posts here and on your thread on brilliantgameologists. I've read several long posts from you and waded through your board and I still don't see the big deal.
So. Your evidence thus far:
* Judges on the take? Nope. Not only that, but emphatically nope.
* Fees "unprecedented"! So... how much are the fees? Why don't you say? First off, talk to me when you have to buy thousands of dollars worth of school supplies for your high school classroom or travel to academic conferences without compensation or be left off next year's adjunct teaching list. Second, there's no fee, so that's strike two for you.
Together, these mistakes shot your credibility. Thus, these objections arose: |
Ummm... ok. I never said either of these things actually. I said the point about money was moot because when I entered the conversation it had already been resolved. So- uh- good to know my credibility was damaged over something I didn't say. EDIT-- OH! I see where you got that now-- uh, you do realize that that was a quote from Zachary, right? I didn't actually write that-- hence the "From Zachary the First" with a link to where he posted that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roguerouge |
Uh- ok. Yeah, that's not a blog. That's a podcast. You have to listen to it to get the content. What you are reading are show notes.
And yes, there are specific examples in that episode to substantiate that claim. There are specific entries that I writing samples I cite from each book in the Best Writing category that show example of "good" versus "poor" prose. As in what an English teacher would accept. Each entry was compared and contrasted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roguerouge * A judge on his blog stated that he liked a podcast. And it got nominated. A judge really liked one of the few works on Epic level play. And it got nominated. But what you don't prove is that one causes the other. See this common logical fallacy for what I suspect is going on here, because you undermined your credibility. |
A judge stated- before submissions- that he liked a specific podcast. And then on the back of one of the books (Epic RPG- not "Epic level play") is a quote by him saying how much he loved this game. And they both ended up nominated.
And I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on Zachary- he was just the most transparent of the judges. Yes, I saw what some others had, but he was the most visible face so the easiest to get direct quotes from.
If a board of a nonprofit was choosing a new landscaper and one of the board members was cousins with one of the landscapers, he would have to excuse himself from the vote. If someone was judging a play competition and had written a testimonial on how much they loved one of the competitors beforehand, they would excuse themselves from the judging process.
To argue against any claim of objectivity further demeans the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roguerouge * You write: "Animalcast has a lot wrong with it and just isn't nearly the quality of many other podcasts- audio or content. A true critical, objective analysis would not have placed it in the top of all submissions." Again, can you give examples? Will you provide evidence to back up your assertions? Is that really too much to ask? |
No- we did not review the "Fan Media' category or whatever it was called. This is the only case where there is not evidence to back up my assertions other than the product itself. I did not do a true critical objective analysis of the podcast- but I'm working on it for this one as well as others, so stay tuned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roguerouge * You write: "And then another book which we were just confounded by as a nomination- Epic Role Playing- wasn't in the same class as the other nominees. It seemed like a good start, but very amateurish." How so? Examples? Any piece of evidence beyond your unsupported opinion? |
Again- I had linked along with this statement the episode which did review the product. There was no unsupported opinion made in our singular ENnies review episode.
But that's just 1 episode of 1 podcast in 1 genre. My point in pointing out our process of review is that if we- a "fan" endeavor can work to be objective, why can't an award system?
No one is perfect. Nothing is perfect. There are varying degrees of "wrong" everywhere. It's the publishers who keep up to date and change based on the market who succeed. It's the podcasts who listen to feedback and take the parts that apply and let the rest go who improve. An ineligible product made it through without notice (yes, I've read the official statement, but its still a pretty hefty mistake). A respected judge resigned claiming "I am disillusioned with the purposeful lack of transparency in the awards" (yes, I read that official response as well). Many podcasts boycotted this year because of the drama caused by last year's podcast entry and forced resignation of an entrant.
This is feedback. The process should change. It needs to change. It can enact changes within the mission of the award that do not disrupt the system too much but will lead to much greater success and reduce these feelings of ill-will towards the award. I
still believe that the ENnies are a good thing. My main thought of them is getting to go to the ENnies with Monte and Sue Cook as a gift from Diaglo's winning the date with them. It was a blast and a great time and I provide the feedback in the interest of something I like reducing the controversy and drama.
And yet another word from our sponsors
