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.
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.
That Da Vinci is a hack!
__________________ 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
I'd like to know when a human being is ever capable of being completely objective, there is always a degree of subjective in opinions of human beings.
Plus I find it immensely funny that Changling is called crap, but netted plenty of votes from other gamers to say its great. I guess Meghan's opinion is obviously in the minority. Not to mention she, by default, says everyone that voted for Changling has crappy tastes in RPG's.
So who knows what they are talking about? Meghan or all the people who voted for Changling?
Hmmmm...
__________________ It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do.
__________________ "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in your imagination..." - Cover of Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules Set 1.
Precisely. If it were objective they wouldn't be judges. They'd be measurers.
What is the difference between objectiveness and fairness? If you cannot be objective in your judging, this suggests that by definition, you are already biased in your opinions, be it because you feel strongly for a certain product, and will not be swayed from your decision regardless of what other people say, or whatever?
I don't see why objectiveness cannot or should not be an ideal for the judges to strive towards and achieve. Just because they feel it cannot be done, that gives them all the justification they need to throw it out of the window altogether?
What is the difference between objectiveness and fairness? If you cannot be objective in your judging, this suggests that by definition, you are already biased in your opinions, be it because you feel strongly for a certain product, and will not be swayed from your decision regardless of what other people say, or whatever?
I don't see why objectiveness cannot or should not be an ideal for the judges to strive towards and achieve. Just because they feel it cannot be done, that gives them all the justification they need to throw it out of the window altogether?
It's not a question about feeling it cannot be done... it simply cannot be done. Being fair is giving everything an even shake, coming at it with an open mind, applying the same faculties of judgment to it that you apply to everything else. That's being fair. As humans, we can try our best at this and, if you'll note, even make a mistake about something as objective as a work's release date.
But when it comes to determining quality, which is what the ENnies are supposed to award, the judgments are primarily subjective. There's simply no way around it. This is also why there's a panel of judges instead of a single administrator applying some form of objective standard. A group can evaluate the materials, debate their relative merits over other entrants, in order to produce the set of nominees. But it's not an objective process at all. Some people happen to like certain styles of games, certain styles of art, certain turns of phrase and those preferences will appear in their individual choices. And again, because it's a panel of judges, the contest has the power to bring a diversity of opinions to the table to determine the final nominees.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
I don't see why objectiveness cannot or should not be an ideal for the judges to strive towards and achieve. Just because they feel it cannot be done, that gives them all the justification they need to throw it out of the window altogether?
It's very possible that the term objective is being read in different ways. Perhaps you could explain your point without the term.
What I got from Meghan's posts about it (and I could be way off here that's why I'm asking for more information on what people mean) is there would be a predetermined checklist of criteria that determines what is a good book.
If you are just saying that judges should be unbiased then I don't think there is an argument to made against that. Of course judges should be as unbiased as possible, but we are human so some bias will be there. Saying that I really like Behind the Spells: Compendium (which I really do) doesn't by itself mean that I am biased towards it and would be biased against books that competed with it. It just means I really like the book.
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.
I followed your link from here.
I guess I'll never know why you feel Changeling the Lost is bad, why Animalcast is amateur, or why Epic Role Playing is in a worse class from the rest. You only tell me that they are.
Because all you will write is:
Quote:
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.
* 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?
So, yes, there's still no evidence, just unsupported opinions for the real impact of your argument: that someone else should have been nominated. And since I've given you several opportunities to make your case on these issues—and you still haven't—I'll quote a VIP ENWorlder: "We're done here."
__________________ 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.
Last edited by roguerouge; 27th September 2008 at 02:18 AM..
Reason: This is like coitus interruptus, but with premature opinions
I am saying that, by any objective standard, he's a hack. Her head isn't even in the middle of the picture! And she's not even smiling! If people weren't so easily influenced (what the Hell does the Louvre really know about art?) and so easily biased (they're just Da Vinci fanbois!) they'd understand that I've already painted things that are objectively a hundred times more meaningful!
__________________ 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
Last edited by The_Universe; 27th September 2008 at 05:17 PM..
I can make such an argument - judges should be biased towards good products.
That sounds flip, but it is not.
That just ends up saying everything yet nothing at all. How should they decide what constitute good products?
Quote:
It's very possible that the term objective is being read in different ways. Perhaps you could explain your point without the term.
Pretty much the way Meg says it. For example, I too like dnd, even though I know it is chock full of flaws. But it is the game I grew up with, and I doubt I would switch to another game even if it proved to be a more mechanically robust system, like Saga. If I were to compare it with another gaming system, I would likely just keep seeing flaws in the latter and claiming how dnd is superior because of so and so, or try to diss a certain mechanic and claim how it sucks and is inferior to dnd's version.
Would it be fair to the system since it was never meant to emulate dnd in the first place? No. Can I be objective as a result? Unlikely.
Quote:
I guess I'll never know why you feel Changeling the Lost is bad, why Animalcast is amateur, or why Epic Role Playing is in a worse class from the rest. You only tell me that they are.
She doesn't need to. What suffices is that she does have her own reasons for liking what she does, and that there are bound to be people who disagree with her choices. The crux here is that I doubt even the judges would be exempt themselves. They are going to have their own rationales for making the picks and decisions they do.
So when someone else has a differing opinion, who is right now? If you say that both are right, just for different reasons and rationales, then what is it that makes the judges' opinions hold any more water/weight than the rest of us? They should be correct because they are an authority in this field, not simply because they are in authority.
That just ends up saying everything yet nothing at all. How should they decide what constitute good products?
There is only one possible way - personal judgment. No objective measure exists, so that leaves us only with the subjective. The past argumentative year or so on EN World shows that very clearly - our community does not have a single standard for "good".
Quote:
So when someone else has a differing opinion, who is right now?
The issue isn't differing opinion - the issue is whether the existence of differing opinions implies that the system is broken. I don't hold that it does.
Quote:
If you say that both are right, just for different reasons and rationales, then what is it that makes the judges' opinions hold any more water/weight than the rest of us? They should be correct because they are an authority in this field, not simply because they are in authority.
That is why we elect judges. We put them into the position of authority. If we put people there who are not authorities in the field, that is our own fault.
Pretty much the way Meg says it. For example, I too like dnd, even though I know it is chock full of flaws. But it is the game I grew up with, and I doubt I would switch to another game even if it proved to be a more mechanically robust system, like Saga. If I were to compare it with another gaming system, I would likely just keep seeing flaws in the latter and claiming how dnd is superior because of so and so, or try to diss a certain mechanic and claim how it sucks and is inferior to dnd's version.
Would it be fair to the system since it was never meant to emulate dnd in the first place? No. Can I be objective as a result? Unlikely.
Wow. Remind me never to vote for you as an ENnies judge, then.
I love Mutants and Masterminds, but I'm capable of looking at Hollow Earth Expedition and judging it as a separate entity. I'm not downgrading HEX because it doesn't allow me to create someone that can fly and shoot lasers out of their eyes. And were they both entered into a competition and I judged M&M to be the better game, than no foul, because it's my job to vote for the one that I think is the best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Runestar
...The crux here is that I doubt even the judges would be exempt themselves. They are going to have their own rationales for making the picks and decisions they do.
So when someone else has a differing opinion, who is right now? If you say that both are right, just for different reasons and rationales, then what is it that makes the judges' opinions hold any more water/weight than the rest of us? They should be correct because they are an authority in this field, not simply because they are in authority.
There are no authorities in this field. On the surface you, Meg, or I are just as qualified to make these decisions as Xath or The Universe. What makes them more qualified at this point is that they have read all of the submissions put forth, so they have the best perspective to judge the entrants against each other.
What sets them apart from us is the fact that they bothered to run for the position, and committed to doing a mind-numbing amount of work for free.
What exactly are the standards that you would have products measured by: spelling? grammar? paper quality? maximum cost to word-count ratio? binding integrity?
If we get rid of subjective measurement, here's what we can't account for in the judging process: art, graphic design, emotional impact, creativity, relevance. Those are all measured subjectively.
there would be a predetermined checklist of criteria that determines what is a good book.
Well that I object to completely. You don't need judges for that, just a formula!
The ENnies are democratic. Nobody tells the judges how they should vote; nobody has the right to, and nobody should have the right to. They are democratically elected representives, who campaign for election with platforms. The community votes and elects these judges as their representaives. If their platform is "I will only vote for games with pink covers" and the community votes to elect that judge, then democracy has spoken, however much Megan or anyone else may disagree.
One person. One vote. Democracy. Nobody gets to say "the majority is wrong".
And THAT is the fundamental principle of the ENnies. Democracy. And anyone who diagreess with how it goes is more than welcome to run for election. If they have valid points and the majority agree, they'll get elected. Everyone has the opportunity and the power.
__________________
Last edited by Morrus; 27th September 2008 at 05:31 AM..
what is it that makes the judges' opinions hold any more water/weight than the rest of us? They should be correct because they are an authority in this field, not simply because they are in authority.
They are correct in that they are the five people that the community has collectively decided each year via democratic election represents their feelings towards RPG products.
Mod hat: [Not a reference to anyone in particular: just a note] You are welcome argue against democracy, but please be careful: politics aren't allowed on EN World, so it must be kept to democracy specifically in the context of the ENnies. No references to real life politics or governments.
So when someone else has a differing opinion, who is right now? If you say that both are right, just for different reasons and rationales, then what is it that makes the judges' opinions hold any more water/weight than the rest of us? They should be correct because they are an authority in this field, not simply because they are in authority.
They have authority to make the nominations because we gave it to them, they have our mandate to do it. And we gave them that because, through the campaign and election, they managed to convince more of us than not that they had sufficiently broad interest and faculties of good judgment that we could trust them in their ENnies judge role.
It's how any form of representative democracy works. Leaving it up to all of us to make the nominations is impractical, so we rely on a panel to do it for us. A panel that is selected from among us in a fair process.
I'm not sure I'd like to have the nominations come from some "authority" figure. Who would that be? Who would validate that that figure is actually authoritative? Why, given the tendency for gamers to fracture and squabble, would you expect any "authority" figure to be broadly accepted, much less universally accepted?
Better to rely on a process in which we cede our personal authority by casting votes to elect a panel of judges.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
