General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I am a judge. Due to the conditions of my employment, I couldn't accept a single cent of money from the ENnies even if I wanted to (I don't).
If, indeed, any fee is ever enacted for any category, I won't see a dime. That money will instead support the ever-growing administrative costs of the awards, which are currently paid for by fundraising activities (dream date auctions, etc.), corporate sponsors (Avatar Art, Your Games Now, etc.), and the out-of-pocket donations of the award organizers.
__________________ National Capital Area Gameday, 24-25 October 2009 www.dcgameday.com My Story Hour: A Kingdom of Ashes. Updated 07/01/05! Zombies! Pirates! Giant Lizards! Intrigue! The Universe commands you to check it out!
Wii #0817 9834 1380 0807
Apparently Meg doesn't understand that the process isn't objective: it's subjective. Their job is to nominate what they like. Her not agreeing with them doesn't make their choices wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrus
Someone disagrees with the nominations, and thinks judges shouldn't nominate their favourites? Should they be nominating products they don't like?
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.
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.
I have a problem with them getting their personal favorites on the nomination list. That's slightly dirty any way you look at it.
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.
For example, my podcast was recently nominated for a Parsec Award- the premiere award for geek culture podcasts. It was a big deal- flew to DragonCon and everything for it.
They have a set rubric for judging that includes things like "How well does the entry represent it's category?", "Production Values", "quality of content" etc. The ENnies would vastly benefit from some sort of structure to the judging.
ENnies aren't that cut and dry, but they could take a page from other award systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treebore
Pay up Podcasters, its only fair to the others that you have a cost as well.
No. The mission of the ENnies is that the judges get exactly what the fan gets. That makes perfect sense. They should judge the same product as is "on the shelves".
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.
The argument over the podcasts on discs is long gone, and in my eyes, vastly blown out of proportion. No podcast who submitted (myself included) had any problem whatsoever with submitting discs. I think I would rather submit on a disc than risk a judge not being able to download an episode. So the disc issue is burried, done, and moot.
It seems the paying issue is fairly moot as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crothian
This was done because of lack of entries all around. It is not something that we wanted to have happen, but it was either lump them together or not have them as part of the awards at all.
But the issue- once again- is that the blame keeps getting put on podcasts. I don't have all of the information, but it seems from a survey of podcasters, that the podcast category had enough entries. It was the website category that lacked entries.
Ok- but then why have 4 of the 6 (including the honorable mention) be websites? Why make it sound like the "blame" lay with podcasts?
This is only an educated guess, and if I'm wrong I will humbly retract this, but I asked and was told the numbers weren't allowed to be released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WayneLigon
This is still over the silly disc thing? I guess they still think they should get an exemption instead of being glad that such categories are even considered award-worthy.
No. No one brought up the "silly disc thing" and my entry which was re-posted here only mentioned it to give my audience who didn't follow the scuffle the background story. And I wanted to point out that the only podcasters complaining about it were ones who didn't enter and mostly had little interest in entering anyway.
So- once again- I would like for the ENnies to be taken seriously. I really would. They have the audience and capacity to do so. I would just like to see the system learn from mistakes and make some changes to improve. Isn't that what all of the entries/ hopefuls are doing as well?
And, since Runestar didn't provide the link:
My original post (and the ensuing conversation) is on my website here.
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?
None of the above. It was suggested and discussed a bit, then Denise went away on holiday. That's it.
And the suggestion (I don't recall who made it - one of the judges, I think) was for a dollar ($1) to cover judges' download costs in case of insane quantities of megabytes of products being downloaded, as I recall.
Frankly, it was just an idea someone proposed, and a conversation that alsted a couple of days of occasional emails going back and forth between the judges, and I hadn't even weighed in on what I thought of it yet.
A mountain is being made out of a molehill. Some people had a conversation; that's it.
They have a set rubric for judging that includes things like "How well does the entry represent it's category?", "Production Values", "quality of content" etc. The ENnies would vastly benefit from some sort of structure to the judging.
ENnies aren't that cut and dry, but they could take a page from other award systems.
This, I can agree with as someone who will never go to these events or do much more than go, "Huh. How much is _____, again?"
Informality and controversy are fellow travelers. At least with a flexible statement of standards, people have ground rules for the debate.
__________________ All role playing advice is given without knowledge of you and your group. Only you and your group knows what is fun for you. What you are doing is not badwrongfun. My advice is offered based on what I think might be fun for you to try.
"Art is the demonstration that the ordinary is extraordinary." - Amedee Ozenfant, Foundations of Modern Art
"I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eke out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work." - toberane.
Location: “Over the Hills and Far Away” - (TDY in Florida - "Home" is Michigan)
Posts: 1,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrus
None of the above. It was suggested and discussed a bit, then Denise went away on holiday. That's it.
And the suggestion (I don't recall who made it - one of the judges, I think) was for a dollar ($1) to cover judges' download costs in case of insane quantities of megabytes of products being downloaded, as I recall.
Frankly, it was just an idea someone proposed, and a conversation that alsted a couple of days of occasional emails going back and forth between the judges, and I hadn't even weighed in on what I thought of it yet.
A mountain is being made out of a molehill. Some people had a conversation; that's it.
Well hell. That really leaves me not understanding what the big deal is with any of this. I wish Zach would weigh in here himself and elaborate.
__________________ Mark "El Mahdi" Armstrong - Semper Operor Verus
". . . after all, that is why we're here. Kill the last bad guy and then there's cake." - Major General Jack O'Neal
"Don't Just Do It, Just Do It Right!"
"Right, without Reason, is unmitigated Foolishness."
"If you make a mistake, Acknowledge It, then make it Right."
I don't think the issue was ever about judges getting paid (or not).
Moreso, it was about the very nature and structure of the events, that seem to make judging the products fairly virtually impossible.
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...
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.
What makes you think they don't?
Quote:
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,
Is it not possible that the five judges collectively (they ALL vote, you know) might have agreed that the products in question were good products?
Quote:
I have a problem with them getting their personal favorites on the nomination list. That's slightly dirty any way you look at it.
Or maybe there's an underlying reason why that judge had a positive opinion of a product. because, just maybe, they were good products, and the judges agreed that this was so.
By your logic, any product a judge has seen before and deemed of quality is automatically ineligle for nomination. Crap, we'd have publishers trying to hide their best work from potential judges, just in case they saw it and formed an opinion!
Quote:
But the issue- once again- is that the blame keeps getting put on podcasts.
Nobody is blaming podcasts for anything.
Quote:
Ok- but then why have 4 of the 6 (including the honorable mention) be websites? Why make it sound like the "blame" lay with podcasts?
Again maybe, just maybe, the judges thought those websites were good? You seem very resistant to the idea that they could have a different opinion to you; and, as an entrant, it's somewhat unseemly to be basing a complaint on what - basically - amounts to "the judges didn't nominate what I think they should have".
It's OK for a general voter to express that - expected, even; an entrant trying to find reasons why the products he/she would have preferred be nominated weren't is somewhat questionable.
I am a judge. Due to the conditions of my employment, I couldn't accept a single cent of money from the ENnies even if I wanted to (I don't).
This holds true for me as well.
Quote:
If, indeed, any fee is ever enacted for any category, I won't see a dime. That money will instead support the ever-growing administrative costs of the awards, which are currently paid for by fundraising activities (dream date auctions, etc.), corporate sponsors (Avatar Art, Your Games Now, etc.), and the out-of-pocket donations of the award organizers.
Like has been said, the reason there are people doubting or even openly questioning the authenticity of the awards shows that in the very least, the decision making process does not come across to be as transparent and above-board as it ought to have been.
Well, there's not much else I can say to you. The judges collectively voted for the products they thought were the best. You can believe me or not, but there's nought else I can say.
Just curious, is this due to employment outside of your role on the ENnies staff, or because of any conditional agreements with the ENnies themselves?
Is this typical for the members of the ENnies staff?
And, if this is typical for the ENnies staff, why was the percentage ever proposed and why is it even an issue (to the staff and to Zach)?
It has everything to do with my "real" job, and nothing to do with the ENnies. As Xath's post indicates, it's a simple fact for at least 2/5 of us. That said, even if that issue did not exist, I don't need the dollar. The ENnies do. Easy decision.
If I recall correctly, the judge payment idea was proposed by someone who was trying to do something nice for the judges, but I don't believe it arose from within the panel itself.
__________________ National Capital Area Gameday, 24-25 October 2009 www.dcgameday.com My Story Hour: A Kingdom of Ashes. Updated 07/01/05! Zombies! Pirates! Giant Lizards! Intrigue! The Universe commands you to check it out!
Wii #0817 9834 1380 0807
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.
Let's look at the Olympics. Or the Academy Awards. Or even a smaller award system like the Parsecs.
I also take strong offense to the notion that "they didn't choose what you like so you're upset." Not the case at all.
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.
Aces and Eights was a fantastic book. Looking at it objectively, it had all the right pieces. It was unique, interesting, had a very interesting mechanic, and included great information. That being said, I will never play that game. I personally don't enjoy that style nor genre of RPG. But just because I don't like it shouldn't mean I can't appreciate its value to gaming.
The inverse is also true. Just because I like a game (again- full disclosure. I liked Rifts) doesn't mean I can't look at it objectively and compare it in a pool against a set rubric.
We do reviews now on our podcast- and reviewed all of the books in 4 of the categories of the ENnies. These reviews were not based on opinion- we set the criteria for review before we opened them. Some of the games we were familiar with and liked the game- but when we reviewed, we looked at it in a new light.
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.
That being said, if these awards are not for products to represent the industry, then by all means, continue in the manner upheld so far. I believe though that they can be more than a popularity contest. I would love to see quality products for each nomination (again- distinction between quality and what I personally like).
I think a few fairly simple adoptions of regulations will solve many of these problems and give more credibility to the award system.
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.
Everyone has their favorites. Take a look at what games I currently play and you will find my favorites (Changeling the Dreaming, Buffy, and D&D). Okay, not a great example as all of the games I'm currently involved in are arguable out of print.
It's all about keeping an open mind though. Each year I've been a judge there are items I know ahead of time I like. Maybe I've bought them already and gotten to use them or really like what the publisher and either have done in the past. But also each year I see a game I did not have and perhaps had not even heard of and been blown away. There is so much gaming things out there no one can be expected to be familiar with it all. That is why we ask for submissions.
Quote:
But the issue- once again- is that the blame keeps getting put on podcasts.
I am not placing blame. I would never blame anyone for not participating with the ENnies and I apologize if it looked like that was what I was saying. If there is any blame it falls on us for not seeing that we didn't have enough in some categories and contacting people asking them to submit.
I also take strong offense to the notion that "they didn't choose what you like so you're upset." Not the case at all.
What I like and what is quality are not the same thing.
I have no idea where you pulled that quote from or why we're talking about what you "like", or why you're defining the difference between "what you like" and "quality". That's nothing to do with this conversation, interesting as it may be as a conversation in its own right.
We're talking about a difference of opinion: your opinion differs to the judges as to what should have been nominated. Fine. I'm sure thousands of peoples' does in thousands of different ways. But the fact that you disagree with the nominations doe snot by definition make them wrong, and any suggestion of such carries a strong implication of hubris.
Or worse, given that you say you were an entrant; that makes it sound like something else.
Quote:
We do reviews now on our podcast- and reviewed all of the books in 4 of the categories of the ENnies. These reviews were not based on opinion- we set the criteria for review before we opened them. Some of the games we were familiar with and liked the game- but when we reviewed, we looked at it in a new light.
And that's very nice for you. But you're not the judges. The judges don't base their decisions on your reviews. They base them on the criteria, policies and other factors they describe in their election campaigns. They are elected based on these platforms. That is a fundamental part of the Ennies process: they are voted for as representatives.
If a judge-nominee platform is "I hate all PDFs and will always vote against them", extreme and unlikely though that may be (I picked a silly example, but you get the idea), and are subsequently elected based on that platform, the democratic process has been served.
Quote:
The judges favortism got in the way of them making an informed decision about a product which is to represent the industry.
Please stop saying that. You have no idea what went through the judges' minds, other than that they apparently disagree with you. Ascribing motives to people in this way is simply dishonest and inappropriate.
--* I note that on another board, you're ascribing things to me that I haven't said, either. To be clear, despite your claim otherwise, I am not "slamming you for suggesting that judges be objective", I am advising you that the judges were objective to the extent that a human can be; in that they voted for products they genuinely considered the best in each category, regardless of whether they had seen them before. Yay for trackbacks.
Please, please, stop misrepesenting people, ascribing false motive to other people, misquoting people, or implying they're saying things they aren't saying. It's dishonest and disingenuous.
I also reiterate - if you were an entrant, then it is simply unseemly for you to be having this conversation.
Quote:
That being said, if these awards are not for products to represent the industry, then by all means, continue in the manner upheld so far.
To "represent the industry"? I'm not sure what that means or where you got it from. The awards' mission statement is on the official website.
__________________
Last edited by Morrus; 26th September 2008 at 02:52 AM..
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,
The debating and arguing is better because we then talk about the strengths and weakness of a product. If I'm voting for Rifts (I like the game, too) but my reasoning is flawed or just not there the others will know it. Plus they can ask specific questions about what I liked verse what they did not.
Quote:
We do reviews now on our podcast- and reviewed all of the books in 4 of the categories of the ENnies. These reviews were not based on opinion- we set the criteria for review before we opened them. Some of the games we were familiar with and liked the game- but when we reviewed, we looked at it in a new light.
All reviews are based on opinion. Sure, you can back it up with examples of what was good but people can easily disagree with those examples.
If you want to fork this thread and pick a category you think the nominations were sub par I'd be happy to discuss that with you. I was one of five judges last year, so I won't be able to speak for the others but I did go through all the major categories myself on my lj and tried to explain what was good and bad about each nomination.
The debating and arguing is better because we then talk about the strengths and weakness of a product. If I'm voting for Rifts (I like the game, too) but my reasoning is flawed or just not there the others will know it. Plus they can ask specific questions about what I liked verse what they did not.
Speaking as a past judge myself, I found the debating and arguing great because there are often so many products that if I see one coming up again and again in some people's list that I don't have, I go back and reread it for better or worse. It also helps when there are so many products that some of them of similiar nature and stature may get blurred and having people able to pick apart your favorite picks is a great thing.
If a judge-nominee platform is "I hate all PDFs and will always vote against them", extreme and unlikely though that may be (I picked a silly example, but you get the idea)
Speaking for myself, what this situation WOULD do is make me question EVER entering into any private conversations or business dealings with Zachary Houghton, a person who can't keep private conversions exactly that -- private.
Anyone who has ever been party to closed-door discussions knows that a lot of ideas, both crazy and good, get thrown around in private before the finished idea is revealed. Making closed-door discussions public, for no good reason, leads to malicious rumors, tarnished reputations, and spreading untruths, exactly what I'm seeing here. Next thing you know, people on other forums are going to be slinging rumors that ENnies judges are taking bribes or some other such drivel, because of a mis-worded paragraph or possibly a misunderstanding Zachary had without talking to the rest of the ENnies staff (as Crothian indicated).
Now, what I AM seeing is someone who decided to make their resignation public in the apparent interest of "whistle-blowing", when there's no actual reason to do so. I'm not affiliated with the ENnies; I've never been a judge, never been support staff, I've run for judge one year and the rest I've marvelled at the great jobs the people selected continue to do. Quite frankly, with the harrassment people give them over perceived slights, over the awards they felt they "deserved" but didn't win, or armchair generals who think they can "make the thing so much better" despite having NO practical experience in such a project, even if they were paid, YOU COULDN'T PAY ME TO TAKE THAT MUCH HARRASSMENT for the good job that they do.
Carry on, ladies and gents -- I'm proud of you being professionals in the face of that much aggravation.
__________________ "Conversely, I'm amazed at the number of people queueing up to tell people that don't like 4e that they are wrong. Why can't people just agree to disagree, and get on with actually playing the game?" --Delericho
If there's one dragon, it's a solo monster.
If there's five dragons, they're standard monsters.
If there's a dozen dragons, either most of them are minions or your DM is tired of the campaign.
--Lizard
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
