Also, in the interests of total disclosure, I should point out that I am now, officially, Zach's replacement. I don't do it out of some sense of accomplishment, because really, who wants to be the guy that got in because someone else stepped aside?
I do think it's important however to be honest about where my opinions are coming from. I just got official notice today, so regardless of how people may feel that this influences my posts I'll point out that up until the last one they were all made before I had been asked to step in. I will admit that I did know it was a possibility however.
Anywho, for those that want transparency I'll argue this much: I maintained a pretty thorough blog during my last term (2007). I'm pretty sure it was the first dedicated ENnies judging blog, and I was never asked to take down a single post or withhold any information.
So, take it for what it's worth, but I guess I'll be firing up the old blog again (
Blogging the ENnies). I don't know if I warrant the "beyond reproach" title I have been so generously given, but I do my best and I'll absolutely be open with anything I feel that people should know.
I do admit right now though that I don't think that should include every off hand comment or thought someone puts on the table before it becomes official policy. I'd be glad to talk about real policy that has actually been made, but I think that the idea that every discussion should be made public would only stifle people who have good ideas that they're afraid to bring up.
Everyone should have the opportunity to float an idea by their friends and coworkers, no matter how good or bad, without opening it up to public derision. I think everyone has probably said something at one point or another that seemed stupid in hind sight, and I doubt you'd want weeks worth of debates or dozens of internet posts reminding you of it.
A person should be able to put something on the table and give others a chance to discuss it without fear of reprisal.
Now, if it becomes policy then yeah, let's complain about a stupid idea that sucks. I believe that the ENnies, like anything, can only be made better by openly discussing the way the rules, categories, or entries work. But complaining about something that never happened is counter-productive. If you hear that they are considering and you think it's a bad idea say so, maybe you will stop something before it becomes an issue, but it's not fair to vilify an idea like it's a done deal.
Has anyone actually paid such a fee yet?
Seriously, discuss your concerns. Obviously it has some effect if the judges are discussing ways to change it in light of the complaints with how it was handled last year. Don't be too upset yet that there haven't been changes that you like because if Zach's post doesn't tell you anything more then it obviously points out that they're at least thinking about it and taking peoples' concerns seriously.
The ENnies are a committee. These things take time and discussion, and ripping apart every bad idea that may have hit the table is only going to discourage the guy who has the right solution from putting it forward. Offer advise, please, and constructive criticism, but taking one person's criticism as gospel, especially without further commentary, is a dangerous path to tread.
And yet another word from our sponsors
