ENnies Zachary Houghton resigns as an ENnies judge

[thud13x]

Originally Posted by Settembrini

You know what?
What yould YOU think, if you weren´t involved?
Say, a politician has done something improper, someone "blows the whistle", and he says: "I wanted to tell it anyway!"

Wouldn´t you roll your eyes?

"SNIP"

1) my personal feeling, built upon several online incidents, that there´s a core group of popular people on ENworld and CM that...well, let´s say they are like old boys. That´s the nicest I can put what I think of this group. And 95% of all people involved with the ENnies come from this group, it seems. Oh, and even if they aren´t elected or anything, they still get access to vital and important information, as I understand at dinners and such. Thusly I think the old boys would rather cover something up "for the greater good". The style of posting in the "evidence" section supports this, as well as shows (to me) a certain contempt for fans & authors ("kiddie table" etc.")

2) the history that is unveiled. The history of how former mistakes have been handled (link-submissions, non-reviewed entries).
"SNIP"

I do not pretend I actually KNOW what is correct. But I damn sure know what it smells like.

So, there you have it, and I can assure you that´s how a number people will think. Take care, and I hope for us all the ENnies will come out stronger & with better communication in all directions out of it.

You do realize we are taking about GAMES, right? Now, if this was a huge, corporate, profit-making undertaking, sure, I'd be concerned, but since it is a number of people who on their free time decided to give something back to a hobby of theirs, comparing it to dirty politicians is exagerated at best.

And since you seem to have such a hard time separating your personal feelings from a HOBBY, maybe you should just ignore the ENNIES and move on to something more substantial to be concerned about.

[Vocenoctum]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

Actually that's not true, reviewers and critics do get chosen as judges for competitions. They are usually considered "experts" at seperating the best from the worst. It's actually unlike a jury in that you usually want experts in, or at least people knowledgeable about, the competitions subject.

There's a difference between wanting a person knowledgeable on the subject and folks that have already formed an opinion on a part of the submissions. A cook or food critic can judge a competition, but would avoid judging someone that they have already raved about elsewhere, in general.

The issue with the Ennies is that the judges have formed opinions on part of the material submitted, so they may love books 1-3, hate books 4-6, and have never seen books 7-12. It's too subjective of a process to really matter though, so not a big deal.


I think that's my issue with the Ennies. It takes itself way too seriously, as do those that follow it. It's like raving that you have the "third best RPG company!" when that company isn't even a blip on the radar of the business world, if that makes sense. The fact that they had to come to a mutual decision and appoint a PR person to notify the public that a product had missed the deadline, well, to me it's just laughable.

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by One Horse town

That would pretty much make any judge that plays and reads games ineligible to judge a good wedge of any products sumitted wouldn't it?

No. There's a difference between liking a game, being a critic, and being an official booster for it. These are all very different things. You can like a game without being connected to its creators and you can critique a game without liking it, but you can't head up the fan movement without exercising some seriosu bias. Which is pretty much what Zachary did.

Zachary engaged in active promotion for Epic at various RPG sites leading up to and following its intiial release (as did I after reviewing it). In fact, I first met up with Zachary on the Epic RPG forums, where he seemed to have been involved with the game at some level prior to its initial release (in what capacity I cannot say, it's simply the impression that I got).

I thought so. So basically the game has been out in different iterations, which pretty much rubishes claims made upthread.

Well, kind of. Except that Zachary heavily promoted both versions of the game in the capacity of 'overly enthusiastic fan'. Normally, I wouldn't be down on fandom in this regard, but here it skirts the edge of conflict.

[Psion]

Originally Posted by Vocenoctum

There's a difference between wanting a person knowledgeable on the subject and folks that have already formed an opinion on a part of the submissions.

Wait, what?

Why would "already forming an opinion" be an issue? It's not like they formed that opinion in a vacuum. So long as they are receptive to new products, already liking something is not a very credible objection, in and of itself, to ones' judging ability.

And an impractical one to boot. How many would be judges out there do you know don't already like some games?

[Crothian]

Originally Posted by Psion

How many would be judges out there do you know don't already like some games?

You mean besides Diaglo?

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by Crothian

You mean besides Diaglo?

I think that OD&D might still qualify as "some game"

[Thorm]

Originally Posted by jdrakeh

No. There's a difference between liking a game, being a critic, and being an official booster for it.... In fact, I first met up with Zachary on the Epic RPG forums, where he seemed to have been involved with the game at some level prior to its initial release (in what capacity I cannot say, it's simply the impression that I got).

For clarity's sake, Zachary H. was not involved with the game at any level prior to its initial release.

He also wasn't involved in the creation of the Game Manual, though we took some of the critical suggestions from his original review into account, as well as suggestions from your reviews, James, , as well as forum posts, as well as anything else useful from anyone interested enough to pick us out in the tightly packed, everyone-in-everyone else's undershirt mosh pit that is internet discussion of small press rpg publishers.

We also cribbed some text from some intarweb reviews of previous interations of our game for the back cover.

He don't work for us in a paid or unpaid, official or unofficial or even in a bikini chained to Jabba capacity. I think we do see eye to eye on some game design concepts, and disagree on some others. We're both fans of John Wick's crazy-revenge-fest Houses of the Blooded. To my eternal sadness, after taking a look at his blog I suspect he prefers Palladium and Rifts and Greyhawk and Aces and Eights and d6 and a bunch of other games and products to Epic.

[Vocenoctum]

Originally Posted by Psion

Wait, what?

Why would "already forming an opinion" be an issue? It's not like they formed that opinion in a vacuum. So long as they are receptive to new products, already liking something is not a very credible objection, in and of itself, to ones' judging ability.

Read my second line then, and perhaps you'll see where I said it doesn't matter. How do you judge if someone is "receptive" to a new product, that they can give it the same fair treatment as their first exposure to it?

You can't, and it doesn't matter because RPG products are so varied and opinions so person that there is no way you can not form biased opinions on them. Understand that these are fan awards for a subsection of a small community and then maybe "wait, what?" wouldn't be your reaction.

And an impractical one to boot. How many would be judges out there do you know don't already like some games?

this is not about all games everywhere, this is about releases within a set time period. Perhaps the ennies submissions should be year round and when they finales arrive, the top rated books are put up for vote.

Or maybe the ennies should just die, so we don't have these arguements all the time.

[Master of the Game]

Originally Posted by Mark Plemmons

Just a suggestion that I'd like to see.

For future ENnie award ceremonies, I'd like to see each category have three prizes - a Gold, a Silver, and a "Judges' Choice" award.

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

From what I've seen during my time associated with the ENnies every year a judges' choice award or two is considered, then thrown out. I think the general idea is that the nomination serves as the judges' choice, and there may be a general fear that going any further might give the idea that our votes mean more than those of others.

[Master of the Game]

Originally Posted by Settembrini

You know what?

I appreciate you take my concerns seriously, and answered thusly.
But really, read the sentence yourself?

sett, I totally take your concerns seriously because that's how we get better. No one see the same from the inside looking out as the outside looking in. I think the very fact that these conversations were going on shows that the personnel of the ENnies take complaints very seriously. Otherwise there would have been no discussion of allowing fees instead of CDs at all. From our perspective the CDs work very well indeed.

What yould YOU think, if you weren´t involved?
Say, a politician has done something improper, someone "blows the whistle", and he says: "I wanted to tell it anyway!"

Wouldn´t you roll your eyes?

You certainly have a point here, but I feel like the emails themselves give enough evidence that they actually were trying to figure out how to deal with it. I know it seems like it was long, but it's important to remember two things. First, there were new judges that were still trying to acclimatize and learn the process, and second, it was just after GenCon. I don't know if anyone else has post-GenCon burnout the way I have, but I never feel like jumping right on anything after I get back, and I never had to spend the month leading up to it running around at the last minute trying to prepare a huge event like the ENnies. It wouldn't surprise me if everyone needed a break and some time to think.

But that´s just appearances, and you could be right that Zach acted prematurely, and everything would have been fine had he waited.

But, as a fan, voter & customer I have severe doubts about it. These doubts stem from two sources:

1) my personal feeling, built upon several online incidents, that there´s a core group of popular people on ENworld and CM that...well, let´s say they are like old boys. That´s the nicest I can put what I think of this group. And 95% of all people involved with the ENnies come from this group, it seems. Oh, and even if they aren´t elected or anything, they still get access to vital and important information, as I understand at dinners and such. Thusly I think the old boys would rather cover something up "for the greater good". The style of posting in the "evidence" section supports this, as well as shows (to me) a certain contempt for fans & authors ("kiddie table" etc.")

If the people at the ENnies are mostly friends it's likely from a mutual respect from working with one another for years and going through some pretty tough trials. You don't have any friends from work that you'd have dinner with after a few years working side by side and talking every day?

I could see why you worry, but I think the fact that the judge pool in the past few years has been very fluid is plenty of proof that no one is pushing an agenda or anything. When it comes to the awards themselves no one is more powerful than the judges, and year after year there's always some old veteran that gets phased out and some new person with new ideas that gets phased in. That's how I got in, that's how Zach got in, and I'd venture we're not the only ones. Who would have expected Teflon Billy to get voted out after years as the heart of the judging staff?

Other than that I don't know what other answer to give you. The "kiddy table" comment was obviously not meant in a derogatory way as has been explained over and over again, and I feel like, if you're going to keep holding on to that there is nothing anyone is going to say that will change your mind on that issue. That doesn't invalidate your other points, but I really feel like it's useless to keep going over that one again and again.

2) the history that is unveiled. The history of how former mistakes have been handled (link-submissions, non-reviewed entries).

I hope that the links issue has been already discussed enough. Certainly everyone has burned a CD that didn't turn out right at some point? Should a product be invalidated because one judge got stuck with a technical glitch? I don't know anything about it, it was after my time, but in case anyone wants to vote against me for saying so in the future, I think it was a good idea and within the spirit of the rules. Please let that help to serve as a guide for whether or not I get your vote when I run again next year.

If products aren't getting a full review however, I think that is pretty unacceptable, but that's a judge problem, not an ENie problem. We get a couple hundred products to review each year. If you can't do it, don't run.

See, we can, and mostly should, not discuss 1), it´s pointless, but I wanted to be as open as possible.

Your passionate and embedded in you position, and there's nothing wrong with discussing it. But maybe we should all move on from saying the same thing over and over again in a half-dozen threads. Myself included. I think it's making us all cranky

But 2) remains strong, so please ask yourselves the question:

Have former process mistakes been made public?

I think that they really have honestly. This isn't exactly the first thread around here about things that the ENnies have done wrong, and I think history has shown us that the concerns are listened to and addressed.

People complained my year about what happened with Fear the Boot. The next year Confessions of a Part Time Sorceress (I apologize if I'm wrong, but I'm not familiar and working from second-hand information here) said something presumably less controversial, but in the same vein. They were handled more lightly by a whole new panel of judges hot on the heels of the earlier controversy, and people became upset. However it does show that they listened, and it does show that they were trying, and they did so publicly.

Last year people complained about submitting products on CD, so this year they were discussing other options. Now everyone is upset that a fee was discussed, but once again it shows that they were listening and trying to find a fix. Was it public yet? No. It was never finalized, but clearly it would have been eventually, or else no one would know to pay the fee.

And if you add that to the "appearances" I treid to explain up-post, what would you as a non-involved person think?

I don't know. I can't claim to be uninvolved, but I can say that Zach's experience was not my experience, and I'd guess it wasn't his last year either, since he chose to run again. Though I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for him.

Exactly:

[Clique] + former mistakes have been covered up to this day (and at least in one instance someone is proud of it!) + before Zach went public nothing was said.

I do not pretend I actually KNOW what is correct. But I damn sure know what it smells like.

So, there you have it, and I can assure you that´s how a number people will think. Take care, and I hope for us all the ENnies will come out stronger & with better communication in all directions out of it.

Thank you. You know, I know people are going to get on your case because they disagree with you. I do too. But I do apreciate that you really sem to be doing what you think is right, and not just trying to cause trouble, and I find that admirable.

I still think you're wrong though.

Let me ask you a question. You seem to take it very seriously that members of the ENnies discuss important topics with their friends because it is "clique-ish" or what have you. Especially the fact that Denise and fusangite talked about Zach's public resignation over dinner.

What exactly are your thoughts then on the fact that Zach shared these emails with several people before making them public? At least two people I know of on therpgsite claim Zach sent the emails to a "group" of people before posting them. Pundit also says he had discussed these problem and offer advice for quite some time.

Is that more acceptable, and why?

I promise I'm not trying to start an argument. I honestly want to know where you stand on the issue, and why one behavior may be (though I'm not saying it is) more clique-ish in your mind than the other.

[CaptainChaos]

Good on you, Master of the Game, for trying to be reasonble. It's a shame you're probably wasting your breath. People who communicate by spewing and frothing don't want reasonable debate; they want to spew and froth.

[El Mahdi]

Originally Posted by CaptainChaos

Good on you, Master of the Game, for trying to be reasonble. It's a shame you're probably wasting your breath. People who communicate by spewing and frothing don't want reasonable debate; they want to spew and froth.

...they want to spew and froth.

You mean like what you just posted?

Look, I don't agree with most of what Settembrini said either, but how is posting something like this helping things. Don't you think posts like this are just going to keep the flamewar going? This was completely unnecessary.