Forum

[Qualidar]

Originally Posted by Runestar

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

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

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



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

Originally Posted by Meghan

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

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

Originally Posted by Meghan

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Meghan

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

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

Originally Posted by Meghan

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

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

Originally Posted by Meghan

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

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

Originally Posted by Meghan

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

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

Originally Posted by Meghan

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

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

Originally Posted by Meghan

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by justanobody

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

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