ENnies Zachary Houghton resigns as an ENnies judge

[El Mahdi]

Well, all the staff members that weighed in seemed to address every point of Zachs explanation in a very logical and believable way. After hearing their side of things I really do believe them. I just don't understand Zachs letter in light of this. He seems very genuinely troubled by the things he feels are going on. It sounds like there is quite a bit of disagreement between some ENnies staff members, and between the ENnies staff and publishers/internet product providers. It sounds like you guys have some internal things to deal with, and a bit of a PR problem also. But, I definitely appreciated all of the staff members who weighed in to clear things up, despite the fact this seems to be a very emotional and troubling issue for you guys. Whether some people are happy with the things you guys said or not, I feel your "transparency" has definitely increased.

Good Luck guys.

[roguerouge]

Okay, Meghan, I've read your posts here and on your thread on brilliantgameologists. I've read several long posts from you and waded through your board and I still don't see the big deal.

So. Your evidence thus far:

* Judges on the take? Nope. Not only that, but emphatically nope.

* Fees "unprecedented"! So... how much are the fees? Why don't you say? First off, talk to me when you have to buy thousands of dollars worth of school supplies for your high school classroom or travel to academic conferences without compensation or be left off next year's adjunct teaching list. Second, there's no fee, so that's strike two for you.

Together, these mistakes shot your credibility. Thus, these objections arose:

* You write: "the one who won, Changeling the Lost, had some of the writing I've ever seen in a book." Okay. Why? Can you give me some examples? Can you compare and contrast with other selections? Do you have any evidence other than that you say so? Let's see what your link says: "Changeling: The Lost: Idiot, Full of , and . Rating: 0" I see. So, still no examples.

* A judge on his blog stated that he liked a podcast. And it got nominated. A judge really liked one of the few works on Epic level play. And it got nominated. But what you don't prove is that one causes the other. See this common logical fallacy for what I suspect is going on here, because you undermined your credibility.

* You write: "Animalcast has a lot wrong with it and just isn't nearly the quality of many other podcasts- audio or content. A true critical, objective analysis would not have placed it in the top of all submissions." Again, can you give examples? Will you provide evidence to back up your assertions? Is that really too much to ask?

* You write: "And then another book which we were just confounded by as a nomination- Epic Role Playing- wasn't in the same class as the other nominees. It seemed like a good start, but very amateurish." How so? Examples? Any piece of evidence beyond your unsupported opinion?

[roguerouge]

Which leaves you with Monte's work being let in despite being released 6 days late.

Which I, as a consumer of the game but nothing more than that, could care less about.

[Meghan]

Originally Posted by roguerouge

Okay, Meghan, I've read your posts here and on your thread on brilliantgameologists. I've read several long posts from you and waded through your board and I still don't see the big deal.

So. Your evidence thus far:

* Judges on the take? Nope. Not only that, but emphatically nope.

* Fees "unprecedented"! So... how much are the fees? Why don't you say? First off, talk to me when you have to buy thousands of dollars worth of school supplies for your high school classroom or travel to academic conferences without compensation or be left off next year's adjunct teaching list. Second, there's no fee, so that's strike two for you.

Together, these mistakes shot your credibility. Thus, these objections arose:

Ummm... ok. I never said either of these things actually. I said the point about money was moot because when I entered the conversation it had already been resolved. So- uh- good to know my credibility was damaged over something I didn't say. EDIT-- OH! I see where you got that now-- uh, you do realize that that was a quote from Zachary, right? I didn't actually write that-- hence the "From Zachary the First" with a link to where he posted that?

Originally Posted by roguerouge

* You write: "the one who won, Changeling the Lost, had some of the writing I've ever seen in a book." Okay. Why? Can you give me some examples? Can you compare and contrast with other selections? Do you have any evidence other than that you say so? Let's see what your link says: "Changeling: The Lost: Idiot, Full of , and . Rating: 0" I see. So, still no examples.

Uh- ok. Yeah, that's not a blog. That's a podcast. You have to listen to it to get the content. What you are reading are show notes.

And yes, there are specific examples in that episode to substantiate that claim. There are specific entries that I writing samples I cite from each book in the Best Writing category that show example of "good" versus "poor" prose. As in what an English teacher would accept. Each entry was compared and contrasted.

Originally Posted by roguerouge

* A judge on his blog stated that he liked a podcast. And it got nominated. A judge really liked one of the few works on Epic level play. And it got nominated. But what you don't prove is that one causes the other. See this common logical fallacy for what I suspect is going on here, because you undermined your credibility.

A judge stated- before submissions- that he liked a specific podcast. And then on the back of one of the books (Epic RPG- not "Epic level play") is a quote by him saying how much he loved this game. And they both ended up nominated.

And I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on Zachary- he was just the most transparent of the judges. Yes, I saw what some others had, but he was the most visible face so the easiest to get direct quotes from.

If a board of a nonprofit was choosing a new landscaper and one of the board members was cousins with one of the landscapers, he would have to excuse himself from the vote. If someone was judging a play competition and had written a testimonial on how much they loved one of the competitors beforehand, they would excuse themselves from the judging process.

To argue against any claim of objectivity further demeans the process.

Originally Posted by roguerouge

* You write: "Animalcast has a lot wrong with it and just isn't nearly the quality of many other podcasts- audio or content. A true critical, objective analysis would not have placed it in the top of all submissions." Again, can you give examples? Will you provide evidence to back up your assertions? Is that really too much to ask?

No- we did not review the "Fan Media' category or whatever it was called. This is the only case where there is not evidence to back up my assertions other than the product itself. I did not do a true critical objective analysis of the podcast- but I'm working on it for this one as well as others, so stay tuned.

Originally Posted by roguerouge

* You write: "And then another book which we were just confounded by as a nomination- Epic Role Playing- wasn't in the same class as the other nominees. It seemed like a good start, but very amateurish." How so? Examples? Any piece of evidence beyond your unsupported opinion?

Again- I had linked along with this statement the episode which did review the product. There was no unsupported opinion made in our singular ENnies review episode.

But that's just 1 episode of 1 podcast in 1 genre. My point in pointing out our process of review is that if we- a "fan" endeavor can work to be objective, why can't an award system?

No one is perfect. Nothing is perfect. There are varying degrees of "wrong" everywhere. It's the publishers who keep up to date and change based on the market who succeed. It's the podcasts who listen to feedback and take the parts that apply and let the rest go who improve. An ineligible product made it through without notice (yes, I've read the official statement, but its still a pretty hefty mistake). A respected judge resigned claiming "I am disillusioned with the purposeful lack of transparency in the awards" (yes, I read that official response as well). Many podcasts boycotted this year because of the drama caused by last year's podcast entry and forced resignation of an entrant.

This is feedback. The process should change. It needs to change. It can enact changes within the mission of the award that do not disrupt the system too much but will lead to much greater success and reduce these feelings of ill-will towards the award. I still believe that the ENnies are a good thing. My main thought of them is getting to go to the ENnies with Monte and Sue Cook as a gift from Diaglo's winning the date with them. It was a blast and a great time and I provide the feedback in the interest of something I like reducing the controversy and drama.

[Thunderfoot]

ENnies Staff Member and not a Judge - oh how glad I am...

Another side of the coin here so that some perspective may be shown on the work involved. I produce the audio for the awards, this has grown from being placed in front of a CD player with a handful of CDs to this year me going into my studio, editing cuts and splicing an entrance and intermission soundtrack. How much did I get paid for this month and a half of work? Nothing - know how much it costs me to do that? At $50 an hour of studio time... Thankfully I have some ins (and a home studio to edit with) so I get a VERY good rate, but can you imagine if I couldn't?

Why do I do it you ask? Prestige - hardly, I barely show on the staff radar. Compensation - obviously not, I don't get paid and don't even get the free product of the judges. Countless groupies and fans - BWAHAHAHAHA! I do it for love of the hobby, just like the podcasters, and webheads - it's why we all do it. Trust me, if you had been in on the meetings a week or two before GenCon you would realize that a lot of stuff goes on behind the screen that has to happen in order to make it work. So why don't we tell you what goes on behind the screen, because it doesn't matter, it's logistics. Unless it ACTUALLY affects the awards, it doesn't go public (or at least it SHOULDN'T).

Once the nominations happen it's up to the voters - the judges and staff have no say after this (other then the judge's award but that's a separate category). I personally didn't agree with MOST of the winners (won't post my opinion here), but that's what you the voting public decided. What upsets me is that Zach emotionally puked on the public before he aired his problems with the other judges - that is just unprofessional.

As for the amount of podcasters that entered - yes there were a bunch, most of them didn't follow procedure and were tossed out, leaving less than 10. Were some mistakes made (specifically the Malhavoc issue)- yes, of course, this is done in the spare time of the folks involved. Everyone tries to do their absolute best to ensure perfection, but things get through. If we had a paid staff to go over all of this with a fine toothed comb it would be different, but we are all volunteers. We do what we can and soldier on. If you want to pay me to do this full time - hey, I'm all for it.

[roguerouge]

"Exhibit #1) From Zachary the First:"

When you quote something someone else says and label it like that, you make it your argument too. You become responsible for its accuracy. That goes double when you endorse its views with the heading, "The ENnies are crap." So, yes, it does undermine your credibility.

And, frankly, I'm not going to listen through a 78 minute episode to find the part where you provide the evidence that you should be citing in one of your lengthy posts on the subject in two forums. If you want to persuade audiences of the rightness of your opinions, you need to make it a bit easier for them to get at the meat of your argument than that. What. Is. The. Evidence. You. Cite. There?

[roguerouge]

Originally Posted by Meghan

A judge stated- before submissions- that he liked a specific podcast. And then on the back of one of the books (Epic RPG- not "Epic level play") is a quote by him saying how much he loved this game. And they both ended up nominated.

And I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on Zachary- he was just the most transparent of the judges. Yes, I saw what some others had, but he was the most visible face so the easiest to get direct quotes from.

If a board of a nonprofit was choosing a new landscaper and one of the board members was cousins with one of the landscapers, he would have to excuse himself from the vote. If someone was judging a play competition and had written a testimonial on how much they loved one of the competitors beforehand, they would excuse themselves from the judging process.

To argue against any claim of objectivity further demeans the process.

First, it's not objectivity that's required; it's being able to judge fairly. The reason we strive to prevent nepotism is because we realize that people cannot, by and large, decide justly because "blood is thicker than water." That analogy does not fit. If objectivity were what was desired, they'd bring in people with no knowledge of gaming whatsoever. What the process needs is fair expertise, which connotes a knowledge base informed by judgments on the worth of past material.

Second, the judges are elected and run on specific platforms. My understanding, having never voted in these elections, is that all candidates say that they like certain kinds of products and specific products. It's actually a job requirement. The Animalcast statement is a nonissue.

Third, the printed testimonial is the more serious charge. But there's no financial considerations flowing to the judge from the product. And the fact that the judges do not make the final decision--the voters do--makes its impact much less. They propose, the voters dispose, as the saying goes. Moreover, the single judge has no ability to unilaterally push that one product before the voters, which further undermines its impact on the process. If there were a smoking gun here or evidence of the product's unworthiness, that would be one thing. But neither have been shown.

So, thus far, your statement that "The ENnies are crap" is unproven.

[Meghan]

The statement "The ENnies are crap" was made on a different board. The discussion about the products were done elsewhere- in a podcast and talked about on a board for that podcast- and are inappropriate in a discussion titled "Zachary Houghton resigns as an ENnies judge". If you'd like to debate the products, the information backing up the reviews, or any of that, by all means, come on over!

I believe Zachary believed what he was writing. We don't have the inner workings of the process or judges. If someone is claiming that things aren't nearly transparent enough and others come in and say "everything's fine. It's all fine here. How are you?" I'm not going to take that at face value either.

My opinions are just one small voice. A judge though resigning because he became disillusioned with the system screams to me the system needs improvement. Bend over and do what Zachary says? Hell no. But in the time this argument has persisted, actual changes for improvement could've happened. Even in a volunteer endeavor (I know that too well) if there is feedback staring you in the face after a few serious errors and you ignore it, then you have to anticipate the same mistakes and the same issues to come up time after time.

[justanobody]

Qualidar: Yes.

Originally Posted by billd91

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.

True judge connections are a bit of a problem in a sense, but it also can help show the quality of an online product. If it is so large to not accommodate the worst of connections them it may mean an online offering needs some work for whatever reason. Take ENWorld for example. Didn't we recently have a lite version being run to compensate for hardware failure?

While it wasn't the intended design of the site, it was something to make sure people had access to the site so while a judge for physical products has everything in hand and needs nothing else, I was just thinking those added disadvantages that online media has that would or maybe should be a part of the review process. While a CD of the material can show the final product, unlike getting a book at a local store, the online media has a different dilevery method that must meet other standards than a physical product so that it can get to people who are interested in it.

It would be a sad case for someone with a podcast and only 2 gigs bandwidth per month to have people flock to it and the judge not be able to see it, but would show something about the podcast. It is a sad thing to say, but that podcast may need some work for it to be accessible to people other than a judge who could get it on a CD.

The awards should be based in part on performance correct?

A book or such that would be presented in newspaper cut-out leters will probably not go over well as a whole product because of how hard it is to read, and likewise a podcast that does not have enough bandwidth to support it probably isn't taking the proper steps to deliver the digital fan product....

I also understand that judges need something to look at in the form of a physical product, but didn't figure they got to keep them, and maybe all those products were auctioned off to support the awards or something else. Like a baking contest the judge has to sample the cake/pie, but doesn't get one to themselves, but there is one for each judge to sample, or Golden Demon each judge does not get a mini or diorama, but must share viewing of the entry.

I just think the delivery method of digital media is an important part of the quality of it.

Looking at Dungeons and Dragons Insider you can se a lot about the quality of the service that people are talking about comes in the form of how it is delivered to them including the latest feedback requesting article.

Judges have to have something to judge after all.

For the fee to enter one type of entry and others not have an out of pocket fee seems kind of funny, but again it is the different forms of media. Assume someone were to ask a podcaster to mail in their web server that houses the podcasts to compare to a book from say Green Ronin.

You really can't equate physical media to digital media in every way because of the differences in how they are presented to the world.

Podcasts aren't that much or PDFs to send in a copy on CD if needed, but what of streaming media that does not allow for download because they don't want their "cast" replicated?

So I am just saying that another option exists for digital media that does not for physical product.

Of course and digital book in eBook/PDF format could be printed and mailed in, and likewise any physical book could be digitized and placed on a CD so there is overlap for some, but not all in comparison.

Also digital media outside of the local area (country/state/etc) would be easier to get in than physical products.

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.

[Arnwyn]

Aside:

Originally Posted by roguerouge

And, frankly, I'm not going to listen through a 78 minute episode to find the part where you provide the evidence that you should be citing in one of your lengthy posts on the subject in two forums. If you want to persuade audiences of the rightness of your opinions, you need to make it a bit easier for them to get at the meat of your argument than that. What. Is. The. Evidence. You. Cite. There?

Oh, give me a break. I was with you all the way, until here. A podcast is a podcast. Listen, and you'll likely get your answers. If you don't want to listen, that's your problem. Expecting anything more is not only unreasonable, it's flat-out silly.

Love this thread - it's always fun reading about a good "scandal" - real or imagined!

[FickleGM]

Originally Posted by Arnwyn

Aside:

Oh, give me a break. I was with you all the way, until here. A podcast is a podcast. Listen, and you'll likely get your answers. If you don't want to listen, that's your problem. Expecting anything more is not only unreasonable, it's flat-out silly.

Love this thread - it's always fun reading about a good "scandal" - real or imagined!

Who's trying to defend their views and who is asking for a defense of said views? The first is whose problem it is, not the second. This is the court of public opinion, where the burden falls to the person on the defensive, not the person on the offensive.

I'm just saying, if roguerogue doesn't listen to the podcast, he isn't out anything...

[Staffan]

Originally Posted by Meghan

If a board of a nonprofit was choosing a new landscaper and one of the board members was cousins with one of the landscapers, he would have to excuse himself from the vote.

That's a poor analogy. A better analogy would be:

A nonprofit is going to choose a new landscaper. A number of landscapers have submitted bids. One of the board members says, "This guy here did the landscaping on my yard, he does good work."

[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.

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by Meghan

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.

The judges are all gamers. They will have looked over, bought, and used some of the products in the year before judging begins. It is not reasonable to expect that they have no opinions whatsoever about any products before they begin.

It is also not reasonable to suggest that having a favorable opinion about one product constitutes "having one's mind made up". Just because I like one book today, doesn't mean I can't see quality in other products. I like the shoes I am currently wearing. That doesn't mean I can't see another pair of shoes as being even better.

[Master of the Game]

Originally Posted by Umbran

The judges are all gamers. They will have looked over, bought, and used some of the products in the year before judging begins. It is not reasonable to expect that they have no opinions whatsoever about any products before they begin.

It is also not reasonable to suggest that having a favorable opinion about one product constitutes "having one's mind made up". Just because I like one book today, doesn't mean I can't see quality in other products. I like the shoes I am currently wearing. That doesn't mean I can't see another pair of shoes as being even better.

I agree. By the time elections are held we're already 3 months into the judging year. I know that I, during my term, already owned several of the books that were turned into me, and was really glad to see them submitted because I liked them so much, but I'd be curious to go back over them and see how many made the cut. I'd guess not many. That was the year I fell in love with games I had never heard of before.

ENnies judging opens you up to a lot of new things. I don't care who you are or how much you collect you will find and love something you had never even thought about during the process. It's the nature of the beast. If you're the kind of person who should be judging, the kind that keeps an open mind about games in general, then knowing something existed before it is submitted isn't much of a barrier.

And if you aren't, having a pet book is the least of the worries.

I can speak without hesitation in the defense of the people I have worked with. They were definitely the kind of people I'd trust for advice on a game system. Even when we disagree, I trust in their reasons for making the choices they did.

Now, I don't know how much weight that holds with others, but there it is for what it's worth. I like Zach, and I think that a person has to stand up for what they believe in. If that's what he needs to do then I trust that in his heart and mind it is the right thing to do, but I honestly have no idea what is going on, and I refuse to speak badly about people who I think are honestly working hard to do something good for the hobby they love.

That won't mean a lot to some people. I have that little ENnies Staff button by my name, but I came by it honestly. I was voted in by the gaming community as a judge. It's the only major roll I've ever had with the ENnies. I wasn't some EN World insider or friend or family or what have you. Like Zach I was voted in by people from other places who wanted their voices heard, and I got my shot, did the best I could with it, and I'm proud of what we did.

So yeah, I'm probably biased. I'll even admit that I ran again this year and I'm the first runner up, so it may well be me who takes Zach's place, but if so it would be with a heavy heart. I like Zach, and we've spoken several times about wanting to be judges together, so I'd hate to do it without him, but please remember that judges are people. If you don't like them, vote differently next year. No one would blame you.

As for the money thing, I couldn't imagine anyone really wanting a cut, though I could see why it might be brought up. I know during my year one of the judges got hit hard with import duties. There are expenses that go with doing this work.

Anywho, that's my two cents. I'll admit that I heard about this first today and I've read all of two threads on this matter so I likely have no idea what I'm talking about, but I've worked with these people before, and I trust their motivations. Including Zach's. I just don't know that motivations always translate well into actions.

[roguerouge]

Originally Posted by Arnwyn

Aside:

Oh, give me a break. I was with you all the way, until here. A podcast is a podcast. Listen, and you'll likely get your answers. If you don't want to listen, that's your problem. Expecting anything more is not only unreasonable, it's flat-out silly.

Love this thread - it's always fun reading about a good "scandal" - real or imagined!

Dude, I'm an ordinary gamer. I've already gone above and beyond for this person by reading her lengthy posts here and at another site and read her own summary of the podcast. And then she tells me that her REAL evidence is somewhere in her 78 minute podcast? I'm not doing a research paper here; the ENnies aren't even an insignificant part of my life.

If she wants to advocate effectively for her views to persuade an audience, perhaps she should type out what she said on her podcast on these products rather than using cusswords to describe them two links away.

It's common courtesy to put your evidence in an accessible format for your audience.

When I'm talking with my students, I put things in as accessible a format as I can. I can't even trust that they'll go to the library. I'd certainly never expect them to click three links and wade through a podcast to get the gist of my argument.

[Meghan]

Originally Posted by roguerouge

Dude, I'm an ordinary gamer. I've already gone above and beyond for this person by reading her lengthy posts ...

If she wants to advocate effectively for her views to persuade an audience, perhaps she should type out what she said on her podcast on these products rather than using cusswords to describe them two links away.

Dude, you quoted me from a different site-- a site which is for the podcast you don't want to listen to. You are taking my comments which refer to that episode.

I'm fine with you not wanting to listen- podcasts aren't for everyone and mine isn't for every podcast listener.

But you can't take what I say about an episode and bring it here and say I'm not supporting my evidence.

Once again- if you'd like to argue my points explaining why I feel a few products should not have been nominated, let's take it to the appropriate venue and I will type out my responses. This thread is not for that, not for me to persuade an audience of those facts and is definitely not about me.

What this thread is about is the fact that a judge resigned because of his perceptions of the ENnies misdoings. And that opens the door to discussion of the ENnies misdoings in general.

The 3 main points still stand that 1) A judge resigned over his perception of the mishandling of the process (I'm summarizing intent there), 2) an ineligible product made it into the consideration while others which didn't follow the process exactly were cast out and 3) A judge's name is on the back of one of the books which to me signifies lack of objectivity.

Add that into the mix of just 2 points that came up previously (and just ones I know about): 4) A podcast last year was forced to drop out which caused a lot of hurt feelings over reasons dubious as best and 5) This year categories were combined which caused a bit of an uproar as well.
I'll add in a #6 to say folks here arguing that the contest shouldn't even strive to be objective I feel is an issue as well.

#5 I put because while I see full well that the rules say combination of categories may happen and don't necessarily feel it was a bad decision, the fact remains it did make some people loose faith in the system- justified or not- and that should be taken as feedback as well.

I'll reiterate- I still believe the awards are a good thing and can be made to be better. These items could be avoided in the future by a few simple fixes. Will it make the awards perfect? Of course not- other problems will come up, but why not learn from mistakes instead of just excusing them away and ignoring them? Why not try to appear as if feedback is being taken seriously? A judge dropped out- there should be more of a response than a press release making him seem like the bad guy.

[Master of the Game]

Originally Posted by Meghan

The 3 main points still stand that 1) A judge resigned over his perception of the mishandling of the process (I'm summarizing intent there), 2) an ineligible product made it into the consideration while others which didn't follow the process exactly were cast out and 3) A judge's name is on the back of one of the books which to me signifies lack of objectivity.

Add that into the mix of just 2 points that came up previously (and just ones I know about): 4) A podcast last year was forced to drop out which caused a lot of hurt feelings over reasons dubious as best and 5) This year categories were combined which caused a bit of an uproar as well.
I'll add in a #6 to say folks here arguing that the contest shouldn't even strive to be objective I feel is an issue as well.

#5 I put because while I see full well that the rules say combination of categories may happen and don't necessarily feel it was a bad decision, the fact remains it did make some people loose faith in the system- justified or not- and that should be taken as feedback as well.

I'll reiterate- I still believe the awards are a good thing and can be made to be better. These items could be avoided in the future by a few simple fixes. Will it make the awards perfect? Of course not- other problems will come up, but why not learn from mistakes instead of just excusing them away and ignoring them? Why not try to appear as if feedback is being taken seriously? A judge dropped out- there should be more of a response than a press release making him seem like the bad guy.

I actually agree with you. Maybe we should discuss this more (by "we" I'm referring to the general populous). I think the problem here is really not so much though that the ENnies staff hasn't responded, but that Zach hasn't. I think they've made an effort, but I'd really like to see what Zach has to say about it.

Coming from a place of ignorance (I probably don't know more than anyone else, and less than anyone who has actually researched it), from what I understand Zach's "resignation" came in the form of a post on his own blog, which was linked here and he reposted on another forum. I believe that was the first that he communicated it to the staff (although, I'm not privy to those discussions, but that's the feeling I got), not through any formal resignation. And so far as I can tell he hasn't discussed it or answered to the ENnies responses anywhere. If I'm wrong please forgive me. I'd love to see what he has to say.

Without his response it's awfully hard to see where the breakdown is occurring. I can see why it's hard for the ENnie people. the spokesperson is away, and I doubt anyone wants to step on toes until she has a chance to comment. Beyond that, I believe there's only so much they *can* say. I'm pretty sure on the application to be a judge it mentions requiring an NDA.

Not to say that we can't discuss your points until then, but we should do so with understanding that there's a lot of silence from both sides, and until the only people who can really speak to those issues (DEnise and Zach) do so it's a whole lot of shadow boxing.

Not that shadow boxing can't be productive and help us learn, but we need more meat for a real fight

As to your actual points, I'll respond with my own opinion as best I can:

1) I think this more than anything is going to require Zach's input. I'd like to hear how he feels the truth is being represented in light of the ENnies response. In the mean time, without his input and given the absense of such a fee I'm inclined to believe this was as it has been represented here. An idea someone brought up that was never adopted.

2) Now this I think is unfortunate, but having been a judge I could see how it would happen. The ENnies rely on publishers to honor the entry dates. Someone somewhere made a mistake and no one caught it. If the mistake was caught after voting was over and the date was off by a few days as an honest mistake, would you really take back their award? We're not talking about disqualifying someone, we're talking about a big, embarrassing retraction for a 5 day mistake. At worst the product would have been entered this year instead. It's not a small issue, and it hopefully will lead to better vetting in the future, but this is a reasonable way to handle the issue and learn from the mistake.

3) Being affiliated with a product before it is published, by the rules, does not disqualify one from being a judge. I have done some playtesting on the Dresden Files myself, as I stated when running for the job. That said, I would like to hear from Zach how closely he was tied to the product and exactly how he voted. Personally I'd withdraw from discussions about the Dresden Files if it comes out, but we don't even know that he didn't. Or, if he had just seen it in PDF or something and wasn't really tied to it at all.

4) Absolutely, but let's be honest about why FtB was asked to leave. Their podcast did sound like bad votes were cast. They weren't asked to do so because they mentioned that it could be done. I like the guys at FtB, I consider Dan a friend and I think their 'cast is amazing. I was even the one that recommended a podcast category and personally asked FtB and a dozen other 'casts to join. I'm no hater, and I still don't think that asking them to bow out was wrong. There was a lot of bad crap in the fallout, and no one really deserved that, least of all Dan and the guys, but given the way the show came off (and I personally don't think they cheated) there wasn't likely another option.

5) I think it has been taken as feedback, but since it's a year until we see the fallout I'd say it's a little too early to worry that it hasn't. I really don't know what the answer is. I believe Morrus is right, less than 10 is pretty ridiculous to try and judge 5 entrants, and that is the reason parent categories exist. Maybe there is a better way to do it though, but the best option might just be encouraging more people to enter.

I don't disagree with you, but these things take a little time, so let's give it through the weekend before we start worrying that there'll be no official response. I don't know many people that would drop their vacation to respond to an issue from an unpaid volunteer position, and no one else really can respond in any kind of official manner. In the mean time let's encourage Zach to give his response, but remember to give him some time to breathe too. I doubt this has been easy for him either.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by Meghan

I'll add in a #6 to say folks here arguing that the contest shouldn't even strive to be objective I feel is an issue as well.

The contest shouldn't be objective because it cannot be objective. It's a judgment of quality. While there may be certain qualities that can be objectively measured - page count and price - there are a host of other judgments that cannot be. How useful a product might be for gamers, how compeling the plot line is for a module, how innovative a set of rules are, and ultimately how good a product is are all subjective judgments.

Objective is right out the window. What the contest should be is fair.

[Crothian]

Originally Posted by Meghan

3) A judge's name is on the back of one of the books which to me signifies lack of objectivity.

First I'm hearing of this. Which product?

4) A podcast last year was forced to drop out which caused a lot of hurt feelings over reasons dubious as best

Are you referring to Fear of the Boot who asked his listeners to cheat and vote as many times so they could win?

5) This year categories were combined which caused a bit of an uproar as well.

This is not the first year we've done this and I doubt it will be the last. Since you keep on bringing it up I'm curious as what you think we should do in the situation that we do not get enough items for a given category? That is the only time we combine categories.

I'll add in a #6 to say folks here arguing that the contest shouldn't even strive to be objective I feel is an issue as well.

If you can come up with an objective way to regulate people's opinions I'd like to hear it. I'm not sure what you point here is, it is all subjective. Not everyone likes the Mona Lisa or the Beatles either.

If we have a clear set of criteria of what it takes to get nominated then publishers won't send in anything that doesn't meet that predefined list. RPGs are creative and these days we are seeing things that haven't been done before. Any RPG that is innovative and truly new would not be able to meet that list and no matter how good the game was they would have lost before the race even started.

We are listening to feedback from you and everyone else that is offering it. If I weren't listening I wouldn't be responded to all of this.