Forum

[roguerouge]

Originally Posted by Meghan

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.

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

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

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

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