ENnies Zachary Houghton resigns as an ENnies judge

[Crothian]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

Well, to me, judges being paid means monetary incentive, I just don't see how this isn't, no matter what "label" is applied to it (a flat compensation for judges I could understand, but a "percentage" of entrance fees is another story, especially if, as implied, not everyone pays an entrance fee).

Judges have never gotten paid. What Zach is talking about is an idea that was talked about but never implemented. There are lots of ideas that get talked about behind the scenes but only those policies that get announced are the ones you should be concerned with.

[davethegame]

Originally Posted by Morrus

It's a policy; it was there before anyone submitted anything; everyone knew about it; it has always been there.

10 entries for a category, or it gets merged into another category. That's how it works.

If there were only nine entries, all a nomination would mean is "it wasn't in the worst half". Nothing to be proud of, really. Even 10 is fairly low in my opinion, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

The fault does not lie with the ENnies, and it's not the ENnies you should be "infuriated" at and "heartbroken" about. The ENnies judges don't enter products, they just judge them.

OK, back up a sec. I'm not saying I was infuriated at the Ennies. As I specifically said, I have a lot of respect for everyone involved in the Ennies. (If I didn't think they were important, I wouldn't have been liveblogging them, and possibly the only person to have done so.)

But coming in late to the process and looking at that category, and knowing all the work that goes into running an RPG website and putting together an RPG podcast, it was tough to accept that all those things were in a category fighting for the same honor. That's the infuriating and heartbreaking part, not directed anywhere in particular.

I'm not sure what the reason was that there were so few entrants into the category. At the time, I didn't know that 10 was the cutoff, but I was only helping with the submissions of other people's sites and not my own (and had I known, I would have made more of an effort to get my site and other sites to enter.)

Obviously I know now the rule, and I feel pretty confidant that there are more things in place to mobilize the needed number this year. I am hoping, however, that the staff realizes that there is some frustration all around and reaches out to all of us here on the fan side (bloggers, site runners, podcasters, adventure makers, etc.) to improve the experience for everyone.

[El Mahdi]

Originally Posted by Morrus

Judges are NOT being paid.

You are welcome to disregard to ENnies for any reason you wish; I'll not argue with you on that. But be informed that judges are not being paid.

If you say they aren't being paid, then I believe they aren't. I'm sorry if my saying that has upset you. I was just basing that from what Zach said in his release. From the way he stated it, it sounded like a done deal. Perhaps a more correct way of saying it then is that it was proposed that judges get paid.

Quote:
"But it clearly is not to be. The ENnies feel that if you submit via link, you should pay an unprecedented submission fee to support the awards. In other words, they are asking you to pay them to consider your product's quality for the award. This donation, as proposed would go mainly to the ENnies, with a percentage going to each judge. Several individuals also wanted this as another "barrier" to the awards process, one of them going so far as to worry "we'll get tons of ill-considered crap that isn't worth the time to download". Hardly the right attitude for a judge, I'd say."

"I will tell you right now, I will not accept one red cent of that money. I'm not saying this because I want a pat on the back, I just want you to know where I stand, as I always promised I'd be direct with you. I disapprove of this measure entirely, and find it to be a move in the wrong direction for the openness and accessibility of the awards. Instead of making a move that in no way hurt the ENnies but instead possibly improved awards participation, ease, and lowering cost for the entrants, they chose to go with a measure that provided a new income source for the awards, but that would do nothing to grow the awards in any sense. Bear in mind, this is despite the ENnies allowing several last-minute "usual suspect" and much-vaunted companies to submit via link at the very end of the submission period last year (for no charge, of course)! I'm not sure where this will lead, or what impact it will have. But at least you'll know where I stood."

If this proposal was not accepted, then great also (I believe that's what Crothian said).

But then this brings up these questions for me:

If this proposal was rejected, why didn't Zach say so in his release?

If he wasn't there, or if this was decided after Zach left, what was the reason behind rejecting this proposal, and did Zach's resignation have anything to do with it?

If the proposal was rejected while Zach was still involved, how is it that he would make this such a prominent part of his reasons for resignation, especially if it had already been resolved?


Short of saying that he was speaking out of school, or was incorrect, the release from the ENnies didn't cover the above questions.

Maybe a point by point of what is incorrect in his release and statement of resignation, and possible explanations as to how any misunderstandings may have occured, might clear things up.

[Crothian]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

If this proposal was rejected, why didn't Zach say so in his release?

For many of those questions you have to ask Zach. As far as I know he didn't talk to any of the staff about being frustrated with things or that he was thinking about resigning. The hint I had that he was thinking of resigning was reading that he resigned.

With any group or committee there is a lot of back of forth of ideas and who wants to do what. We are still in the discussion phase of many of the issues he's talking about. I'm not going to guess as the reasons why Zach said and did what he said and did.

[El Mahdi]

Originally Posted by Crothian

Judges have never gotten paid. What Zach is talking about is an idea that was talked about but never implemented. There are lots of ideas that get talked about behind the scenes but only those policies that get announced are the ones you should be concerned with.

I stand corrected about judges being paid.

I'm sure that the ENnies staff would have preferred that things talked about behind closed doors, and things proposed but not accepted, had not been made known to the general gaming public. But Zach's statement has now made that moot. Now that the cat's out of the bag, these things that Zach said make me wonder about the intentions and ethics of some on the ENnies staff. I, and the general gaming public, have a funny way of deciding for ourselves what we should and shouldn't be concerned with.

[El Mahdi]

Originally Posted by Crothian

For many of those questions you have to ask Zach. As far as I know he didn't talk to any of the staff about being frustrated with things or that he was thinking about resigning. The hint I had that he was thinking of resigning was reading that he resigned.

With any group or committee there is a lot of back of forth of ideas and who wants to do what. We are still in the discussion phase of many of the issues he's talking about. I'm not going to guess as the reasons why Zach said and did what he said and did.

True, some of those would definitely need to be answered by him (speak up if you're listening in).

But, some of those don't need to be answered by him (and weren't answered by anyone else, yet):

Was the proposal to give a percentage of the entry money to judges rejected before or after he left?

What were the reasons why the proposal was rejected?

If it was rejected after he left, what role did his resignation have in the decision?

[RangerWickett]

I haven't been involved in these discussions, but I have had a lot of interactions with nearly all of the ENnies staff, and I cannot imagine any of them being motivated from greed. The ENnies were a money drain for a long while, but the people in charge still put them on because they wanted to honor the folks who make the games we love.

The judges each have to read tens of thousands of pages of products, and do so in a period of, what, less than 2 months? They don't get paid for it, aside from the benefit of having a ton of gaming products that I believe at least a few of them auction off.

They're good people. Hell, in the gaming industry there isn't even enough money for it to be worth trying to be greedy. Even if the awards were considering an entry fee, it would go to covering costs, not lining the pockets of the judges.

[Crothian]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

make me wonder about the intentions and ethics of some on the ENnies staff.

Honestly, I wouldn't read to much into it. With a group of people sometimes it is good to suggest ideas that are not going to be liked to get people to talk about them and see if that discussion comes up with a good idea from a bad one. That a bad idea was shot down I would think would be a positive thing.

[CaptainChaos]

Originally Posted by Crothian

For many of those questions you have to ask Zach. As far as I know he didn't talk to any of the staff about being frustrated with things or that he was thinking about resigning. The hint I had that he was thinking of resigning was reading that he resigned.

He was apparently getting advice from "the RPGPundit", according to a thread on theRPGSite. If he listened to anything that guy had to say, it would explain a lot.

[Crothian]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

Was the proposal to give a percentage of the entry money to judges rejected before or after he left?

What were the reasons why the proposal was rejected?

If it was rejected after he left, what role did his resignation have in the decision?

Nothing has been officially rejected or accepted at this time. Denise, the Business Manager, is away on a weekend vacation I believe, so discussions with her have to wait till she gets back.

No one though has supported the idea that I have seen and I no one seems like they were thinking of changing their mind.

His resignation more then likely with mean that we wait for the new judge to be contacted and he (the new judge) will get a chance like everyone else to weigh in on the decision.

[El Mahdi]

Originally Posted by Crothian

Honestly, I wouldn't read to much into it. With a group of people sometimes it is good to suggest ideas that are not going to be liked to get people to talk about them and see if that discussion comes up with a good idea from a bad one. That a bad idea was shot down I would think would be a positive thing.

You're right, that is absolutely a positive thing. It also shows that there are some very good people involved with the ENnies. I would assume that since ENWorld is Moruss's baby, that he's involved in at least some capacity, and I've never seen or read anything that would imply that he was anything less than an honorable man, or not deserving of respect for what he has accomplished here (at ENWorld). And although I haven't been around ENWorld for any substantial time, every post I've ever read by you (Crothian) has always been fair, informative, and even sometimes witty. As long as there are people such as you guys involved, it can't be all bad.

Healthy debate is always good. Playing devils advocate within a group, in order to bring out good ideas from that group, can also be good (not that I've ever done this myself). But bad ideas presented because of questionable motivation, is not good. While the fact that bad ideas are shot down is positive, the fact that bad proposals, possibly based on questionable motivations, are even proposed in the first place, is not positive (I'm not saying that is the case, but Zachs statement seems to imply this). The idea that this might be happening may be seen by some (apparently including Zach) as a cancer within the group. He apparently feels strongly that this is happening. Of course, as you said before, these last thoughts would be things that he would have to answer, or comment on himself.



By the way, what about those other questions? Never Mind, I see you answered in another post while I was typing.

[Qualidar]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi

By the way, what about those other questions?

Playing devil's advocate myself: they were private conversations, so they're none of your business?

[justanobody]

Originally Posted by Runestar

No offense, but who even takes the Ennies seriously to begin with?

How seriously you take any awards, Emmys, Oscar, etc is a matter of personal choice. The fact that IF the judges were expecting payment and compensation to allow digital medium users entry is the problem.

A link provides no less than a physical product where digital medium is concerned. Actually for podcasts, or other digital media it shows how well the method of delivery is for such media and should be taken into consideration from a judging standpoint.

If the judges got fre product for judging and just got upset they had to find a link and charge a cost to submit things then there is the problem. Judges should get nothing from individual contestants in anything. That just sounds like buying votes to me.

That is just one part I wanted to mention about this and think the person stepping down as a judge has done the honorable thing and the others advocating for the other way are doing the wrong thing in the nature and spirit of any kind of contest where awards are given out.

So even if the Ennies are a joke event, the judging and application process should be fair to all, and disconnected from each other lest you venture into the area of buying votes.

[Qualidar]

Originally Posted by justanobody

How seriously you take any awards, Emmys, Oscar, etc is a matter of personal choice. The fact that IF the judges were expecting payment and compensation to allow digital medium users entry is the problem.

A link provides no less than a physical product where digital medium is concerned. Actually for podcasts, or other digital media it shows how well the method of delivery is for such media and should be taken into consideration from a judging standpoint.

If the judges got fre product for judging and just got upset they had to find a link and charge a cost to submit things then there is the problem. Judges should get nothing from individual contestants in anything. That just sounds like buying votes to me.

That is just one part I wanted to mention about this and think the person stepping down as a judge has done the honorable thing and the others advocating for the other way are doing the wrong thing in the nature and spirit of any kind of contest where awards are given out.

So even if the Ennies are a joke event, the judging and application process should be fair to all, and disconnected from each other lest you venture into the area of buying votes.

Are you posting this before reading the rest of the posts in this thread?

[El Mahdi]

Originally Posted by Qualidar

Playing devil's advocate myself: they were private conversations, so they're none of your business?

Of which everyone is definitely allowed to play Devils Advocate whenever they want to (or Devils Minnion if you prefer).

However, as to whether it's my business or not, the winners of these awards get to put that little "ENnies Award Winner" tag on there products. That little tag is intended to show that products superiority over other like products, and is intended to show this to customers. Since I am a customer, the validity of that tag does matter to me. So, yes, it is my business.

Now, if those on the ENnies staff don't want to answer, or feel that they don't need to answer, that is completely within their perogative. If I want an answer, it's completely within my perogative to ask the question. At the same time, I'm not stupid enough, or arrogant enough, to expect that the have to, or even will, answer me. Although, I definitely appreciate when they do answer.

[roguerouge]

Blogging: Making Burnt Bridges Since 1994.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by justanobody

If the judges got fre product for judging and just got upset they had to find a link and charge a cost to submit things then there is the problem. Judges should get nothing from individual contestants in anything. That just sounds like buying votes to me.

The free products the judges get are the entries that the publishers submit. Review copies, in other words, provided so that no judge's ability to participate in the selection has to depend on his or her disposable income.

Now, I can understand that it's easy enough to check out a link online, but the quality of the site or podcast viewing/listening experience could be affected by the quality and speed of the judge's internet connection. So I don't exactly think that asking the submission to be on a cd is off base. The podcasters really should want the judges to be able to review at their own best convenience and in the best conditions they can manage.

As far as thinking of it as requiring every entrant to have put up something of value, whether in the form of the product in question or an entry fee, wherever that fee goes, I don't see any problem with broaching the discussion. Requiring some kind of value from everyone would fit some definitions of fairness, so I don't see it being a discussion to avoid, even if the idea is eventually rejected.

Personally, I'm not sure that resigning and letting a blog post be the primary notification mechanism for it is really a good idea or tactful plan.

[El Mahdi]

To clarify something, I do not see the ENnies as a joke. I realize that it's not the equivalent in scope or impact as award presentations in the entertainment industry, and that there is a certain amount of fan participation and lighthearted fun involved in it. However, to a 3pp, that little award tag on their product can make a big difference. In an industry where there is a lot of competition for a relatively small part of the pie (since the 800 pound gorilla owns the majority of that pie), that kind of endorsement can be a huge thing. IMO, based on principal, it always matters whether something is honest or fair, whether it matters in the greater scheme of things or not. Now I'm not saying the ENnies aren't fair and honest, but in this type of thing, even the appearance of unfairness or impropriety can be very damaging. Clarifying questions about this can only help with customer confidence.

[roguerouge]

Aren't 100 packs of CD-R and DVD-Rs like, what, 25 bucks? And if you get nominated for your free service, don't you get something back--pride, prestige in the hobby, the remote possibility of ad revenue in the distant future? And, I'm sorry, but I just don't care that there's a grab-bag category or two. If it bothers the podcast community or fan site community, I don't know, perhaps you could podcast or blog about it next year? And encourage each other to submit their shows/pages?

I am failing to get the moral outrage here, absent a really exorbitant fee that pushes the total cost into 3 figures.

Perhaps someone could explain it to me? 'Cause if the judges aren't getting paid there's not even any smoke here and I write this off as one guy failing his wisdom check.

[roguerouge]

Originally Posted by billd91

Now, I can understand that it's easy enough to check out a link online, but the quality of the site or podcast viewing/listening experience could be affected by the quality and speed of the judge's internet connection. So I don't exactly think that asking the submission to be on a cd is off base.

Exactly. Imagine how pissed you'd be if you lost because one judge was using Internet Explorer 6!