ENnies Zachary Houghton resigns as an ENnies judge

[Master of the Game]

Originally Posted by Cam Banks

Oh, I agree. And there's an element of "you're playing it wrong" that comes out of that. In fact, I think they advocate the notion that many people are having fun playing bad games when they could be having MORE fun playing good games. Games they think are good: Savage Worlds, Spirit of the Century, Burning Wheel. Games they think are bad: All White Wolf Storyteller/Storytelling games, Serenity (and other games we make ), etc.

Cheers,
Cam

Well, as long as they're objective and not biased...

[Vocenoctum]

Originally Posted by Monkey Boy

Zach backs himself in the discussion at theRPGsite:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread...=12054&page=11

I'm not sure if it's all that damning.

I think some of the "evidence" directly counters comments made here though.

While the drama is fun and all I think it's much ado about nothing. Also I think its sad that bridges are being burned. It's kind of like a car wreck, I can't stop watching.

It's a clique thing. Everyone that "knows" the folks on either side says they're great, honest folks that would never tell a lie. Even when they say stuff that's counter to the others views.

IMO, ENWorld and the Ennies have never had transparency in regards to money or policy decision. It doesn't matter, you make a choice if ENWorld is somewhere you want to support, and you make a choice whether the Ennies are a valid award or just a clique doling out praise. None of it really affects life.

[Kishin]

Originally Posted by Cam Banks

I believe (but I'm not going to assert as true) that the BG folks have established what they consider to be an objective, scientific approach to analysis of games in order to determine what makes them good or bad games. I do not believe that Meghan, Josh, or Zeke feel that their game analysis is opinion for this reason, and that judges should likewise establish this objective set of critera going forward.

Cheers,
Cam

In other words, they believe they've discovered a way to have an objective opinion?

Anything so heavily dependent on personal preference like the type of recreational activity someone enjoys is simply not going to be able to be evaluated on a purely objective basis.

[quote=Cam Banks]In fact, I think they advocate the notion that many people are having fun playing bad games when they could be having MORE fun playing good games. Games they think are good: Savage Worlds, Spirit of the Century, Burning Wheel. Games they think are bad: All White Wolf Storyteller/Storytelling games, Serenity (and other games we make ), etc.

The fact is, though, these people are having fun, and no one else is being hurt by it. I don't see why this is so offensive. I don't e-rage at people over the fact that I enjoy objective based FPS games over Deathmatches (As an example), why should they conduct themselves similarly?

[El Mahdi]

Originally Posted by Terramotus

This is ridiculous.

It's not pretending to be an elf for 5 hours a week that can at times make me feel embarrassed about my hobby, it's tempest in a teapot garbage like this. This is not Serious Business, nor should it be.

1. If you think the awards are stupid and biased, don't submit, don't participate.

2. Public resignations and public complaining about situations you're involved in never make you look good, no matter how right you are. It's rather Buddhist, really.

3. Judges are supposed to judge, and they're elected to boot. I don't care about the results unless there is evidence that the guidelines aren't being followed. If you don't like the choices, run for judge, but make sure to submit any of your own work or work affiliated with your own. We wouldn't want favoritism.

Furthermore, I think that some individuals are revealing more than they think they are when they refuse to trust the judgment of others without strict guidelines.

4. If you're only doing a podcast out of love, then why is this that important? Show me lost profits leading to lost livelihoods and then I'll care. It shouldn't matter anyway; sustained quality always rises to the top.

5. Morrus, and others involved in the Ennies: thank you for your time and effort. Don't let trash like this get you down.

NO! THIS IS NOT RIDICULOUS!

People have a way of deciding what's serious, or not serious, for themselves, based on what's important to THEM. If it's not serious for you, fine, take your own advice and "DON'T PARTICIPATE". However, I feel that the above post you wrote puts the lie to your not taking this seriously. If it wasn't serious to you, I don't think you would have posted at all.

You have some good points about many of the posts on this thread. Your opinion of what Zach did, and the things that a certain disgruntled podcaster said, are your opinions. I agree with you for the most part, but agree even more that you're entitled to your opinions, and your right to voice those opinions. I wouldn't call your opinions "ridiculous" or "garbage", I'd appreciate if you'd extend the same courtesy to everyone else.

Whether you agree with what Zach said, or how he did it, it was something that needed to be dealt with by those involved with the ENNies. It was an accusation of impropriety, that whether true or not, could not be ignored by those involved with this. Up until this thread, that is exactly what was happening. The problem was being ignored. The initial response to Zach's resignation on the ENNies site was a non-response. Whether you feel the ENNies are important or not, or serious or not, there are those who do. There are people who think that "ENNies Award Winner" tag on products means something, and Zachs "letter" cast the value of that in doubt. Whether or not it's right or wrong for Zach to reveal things that were discussed behind closed doors (however, I do feel that was wrong), once he did it, it had to be dealt with.

I feel that the people involved with the ENNies did a very good job of revealing exacly what really happened behind those closed doors, but until this thread, they weren't doing that. There were some people, that in their opinions, had some valid concerns and voiced those concerns in this thread. Because of those posts, those involved with the ENNies rose to the occasion and dealt with those concerns in an excellent manner. And I feel, because they responded, they sufficiently had their ire up to very soundly deal with a certain disgruntled podcaster.

I think after someone reads this thread, and I mean the entire thread, not just skimming it, they will realise for themselves that this is a non-issue. However, the same couldn't be said before the Staff and Judges of the ENNies spoke up. What happened here is that the truth behind this issue was revealed, because of the discourse and opinions of those who contributed to this thread. I for one, definitely do not consider that ridiculous.

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by Vocenoctum

It's a clique thing. Everyone that "knows" the folks on either side says they're great, honest folks that would never tell a lie.

Plenty of folks who know the people on both sides of the issue have nothing positive to say about one side or the other, actually — you're just reading the wrong thread

[Settembrini]

Well, at least the provided evidence shows that the CM-popular kids-clique-Judges & their Dinner-buddies have agreed upon lying to you the interested fan & customer on at least two occasions to cover up errors in the process.

You might not care for these process-mistakes, but if they really were minor, there would not have been a problem with being frank about it, no?

EDIT: Just to be clear, I´m talking about the pdf-download issue and the Monte Cook submission. Actually with the other pdf download issue regarding last year´s "avoided" law suit, it´s three times of agreement to ly to the public to cover up errors.

[El Mahdi]

Originally Posted by Settembrini

Well, at least the provided evidence shows that the CM-popular kids-clique-Judges & their Dinner-buddies have agreed upon lying to you the interested fan & customer on at least two occasions to cover up errors in the process.

You might not care for these process-mistakes, but if they really were minor, there would not have been a problem with being frank about it, no?

EDIT: Just to be clear, I´m talking about the pdf-download issue and the Monte Cook submission. Actually with the other pdf download issue regarding last year´s "avoided" law suit, it´s three times of agreement to ly to the public to cover up errors.

"Agreement to Lie" means conspiracy and collusion, and I see absolutely no evidence of that. Please point out or list this evidence because I either don't see it, or it hasn't been revealed in this thread.

Did they make mistakes? Yes.

Did they have a lack of transparency about them? Yes

Have they come clean about them during the course of this thread? Yes

Do I feel that they acted improprietously? After hearing there explanations and comparing it with what Zach wrote in his resignation and the above link to his posts, 100% NO.

Did they purposely discuss and then decide to not reveal those mistakes? I just don't see it, and don't see anywhere in this thread where that was said. If you were there during these discussions, and have the evidence to back it up, I'm sure everyone would be willing to listen to you. Until then . . .

[Settembrini]

El MAhdi: I´m not yelling "conspiracy", but I do think

Did they purposely discuss and then decide to not reveal those mistakes? I just don't see it, and don't see anywhere in this thread where that was said. If you were there during these discussions, and have the evidence to back it up, I'm sure everyone would be willing to listen to you. Until then . . .

can be adressed with this

book of experimental might discussion - Photos - RPGpundit's Xanga Site

and this

more allowed pdf downloads 2008 ennies & warning - Photos - RPGpundit's Xanga Site

[El Mahdi]

Okay Settembrini, I see your point to a certain extent, but I just don't see it as purposefully lying. You do see it that way, I understand how you are coming to that, I'll just have to agree to disagree with you.

However, I feel (IMO) that the majority of their problem here is a lack of transparency. I read some of those posts from Zach from the links a little further up-thread. It was said there that maybe they need a PR person, but instead went for just a submissions manager. Maybe that was a mistake. I think they could really use some PR help.

The reprinting of those e-mails is probably a sore point also. If the people involved with the ENNies felt that Zachs releasing of things discussed in closed meetings was upsetting, then posting private e-mails is probably very upsetting to them. I see that as a breach of privacy, they probably do also. If not actually required (I don't know if there are laws covering this or not), I think it's at least standard ettiquette to have permission to release private e-mails.

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by Settembrini

Well, at least the provided evidence shows that the CM-popular kids-clique-Judges & their Dinner-buddies have agreed upon lying to you the interested fan & customer on at least two occasions to cover up errors in the process.

I see absolutely no evidence of any lies.

I see one staffer (a coordinator of some sort, not a judge) suggesting that a policy be retroactively altered to obscure an error (which, for the record, I think was a really uncool suggestion) — but absolutely nobody else agreeing with him or any proof that the suggested course of action was ever followed. Indeed, there is an open announcement on the ENnies home page that clearly proves the suggestion was not followed. Thus, no lie.

I see no other proof of "lies" or anything that could, barring wishful thinking or creative exagerration, be offered as proof of a "lie". What I do see is somebody with a long-standing, openly admittted, resentment against this site exploting the situation to promote the personal blog of a long since banned user who, himself, has a long-standing, openly admitted, resentment against this site that stems directly from aformentioned banning.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Settembrini

Well, at least the provided evidence shows that the CM-popular kids-clique-Judges & their Dinner-buddies have agreed upon lying to you the interested fan & customer on at least two occasions to cover up errors in the process.

You might not care for these process-mistakes, but if they really were minor, there would not have been a problem with being frank about it, no?

EDIT: Just to be clear, I´m talking about the pdf-download issue and the Monte Cook submission. Actually with the other pdf download issue regarding last year´s "avoided" law suit, it´s three times of agreement to ly to the public to cover up errors.

Sooo... I'm guessing you couldn't take fusangite's logical refutations on the RPGSite and have come here hoping to escape it?

How foolish.

[Obryn]

Sett, is your argument that one member of a committee - who's not the official spokesperson - can make official policy declarations on a private email list?

Look, I know that this grand conspiracy is much, much weaker than you wanted it to be. But find elsewhere to get your pound of flesh.

-O

[Settembrini]

Now you are constructing something, jdrakeh. I don´t have a dislike for ENnworld, just one for CM, 4e and Teflon Billy. But apart from that, I visit and enjoy ENnworld every day, and link to it regularly. Out of the thingws above 4e has curbed my enthusiasm sorely, but I´m not alone and the ed wars have definitely changed these boards for the worse, no matter if you are pro 4e or anti whatever.

Everyone can download the files via rapidshare or something similiar, and I only used pundit´s site because he already hosted them.


Anyway,

I see one staffer (a coordinator of some sort, not a judge) suggesting that a policy be retroactively altered to obscure an error (which, for the record, I think was a really uncool suggestion) — but absolutely nobody else agreeing with him or any proof that the suggested course of action was ever followed. Indeed, there is an open announcement on the ENnies home page that clearly proves the suggestion was not followed. Thus, no lie

.

Well, but what happened actually?
Nothing!
The policy was not altered retroactively.
The error was not made public to the interested parties (voters & competitors).
The award was not revoked.

So, what do you call that? I call that misinformation to cover up a mistake. And that´s lying in my book.

There also was a blatant lie:

The official statement that link-submissions weren´t allowed. Where in fact for certain games they WERE allowed last year.

As much as I can understand the sympathy many people have towards the ENnie staff, because they hang around together a lot, there are things that have gone pretty wrong.

Not only on the process but in the mindset of the ENnies regulars (=CM-clique).

And this is the "scandal" from my point of view, not that some mistake happened, but the way it was treated: cover up operations

@El Mahdi: It´s basically irrelevant to our discussion if the sources are "legal". Is it "legal" for some internet dudes to threaten Zach´s family? Because that´s what happened before Zach went public with the eMails. he was attacked by many hate mails, threats included. Both things are a breach of etiquette, both are petty & irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I think making it possible for everyone to review the evidence himself is a great boon. It keeps the discussion grounded on facts and their interpretation instead of wild speculation and accusation.

[Settembrini]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Sooo... I'm guessing you couldn't take fusangite's logical refutations on the RPGSite and have come here hoping to escape it?

How foolish.

Please drop it. This is not the place, it´s moderated, you know?

I just wanted to make some facts clear that are hidden under the carpet.

Fusangite made a fool of himself back at theRPGsite, there is no need to revenge for anything.

[Monkey Boy]

Originally Posted by jdrakeh

I see one staffer (a coordinator of some sort, not a judge) suggesting that a policy be retroactively altered to obscure an error (which, for the record, I think was a really uncool suggestion) — but absolutely nobody else agreeing with him or any proof that the suggested course of action was ever followed. Indeed, there is an open announcement on the ENnies home page that clearly proves the suggestion was not followed. Thus, no lie.

Not entirely correct from what I gather. Kennon is a judge this year and was a co-ordinator last year. So he would be spitballing this idea from an official judge capacity.

[Zinegata]

I'm fairly late coming into the discussion but this kinda drew my attention:

Originally Posted by Morrus

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!

Yes, judges are allowed to have an opinion. They can have likes or dislikes. However, there is just one problem:

In at least one case, a judge crossed the line from expressing a "personal opinion" to "having a conflict of interest."

See, according to Meg...

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. But low and behold, turn the book over and guess who one of the accolades printed on the back is from? Yep, Zachary the First, which means he saw it before it was released, already favored it, and then "judged" it?

Now, I cannot confirm this as I don't own the book. But if Zachary was indeed quoted by Epic Role Playing, then it represents a clear conflict of interest.

The fact that your quote appears on the book means that you had access to the book prior to its release. Therefore, the judge at the very least had "behind the scenes" access to the material, or he was directly involved in its creation.

Now, people may argue that this is merely an innocent coincidence and the judge just really liked the book. This may indeed be the truth of the matter. But from a professional perspective, this is a pretty clear ethical violation.

Zachary was involved in some way with the Epic Role Playing book. Therefore, he should have excused himself from a supposedly independent competition whose incidental purpose is to help advertise and increase the sales of such books.

Again, whether the association is innocent or not is irrelevant. By the mere fact that he's associated with the publication prior to the book's release, Zachary should have excused himself from judging that particular book. This is the norm for all reputable ventures.

[One Horse town]

Imagine a billboard poster for a film.

King Kong

A wonderfully entertaining and scary tale - New York Times



Would you say that the NYT was involved in some way with the film? or because the critic liked it he shouldn't be able to judge it along with the other films released that year? Or would you say both? Seems like a strange argument to me.

Also wasn't Epic released before and this product was a 'tidy-up' or collection of stuff previously found elsewhere? Not sure, but i seem to recal something along those lines.

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by One Horse town

Imagine a billboard poster for a film.

King Kong

A wonderfully entertaining and scary tale - New York Times

Would you say that the NYT was involved in some way with the film? or because the critic liked it he shouldn't be able to judge it along with the other films released that year? Or would you say both? Seems like a strange argument to me.

FWIW, an excerpt of a review that I wrote of the original Epic products is also cited on the cover of the Epic book that was submitted for judging. I was not at all directly involved with the product's inception, production, or marketing. I believe that this was also true in Zachary's case. I don't think that there is a clear conflict there.

That said, as a huge fan of Epic since reviewing it I would have made this known and excused myself from judging the product in question — as Zachary should have (and possibly did, for all I know). He was also a big, unabashed, fan of Epic and one of its boosters on various different forums (notably RPGNet and theRPGsite, though).

Also wasn't Epic released before and this product was a 'tidy-up' or collection of stuff previously found elsewhere? Not sure, but i seem to recal something along those lines.

The submitted product was a re-issue of previous books, better formatted for easy access and released in hardcover format via Lulu.

[Crothian]

Originally Posted by Settembrini

The official statement that link-submissions weren´t allowed. Where in fact for certain games they WERE allowed last year.

The only exceptions to this I can recall, as I said up thread, were for products sent that for whatever reason not everyone got or products we got via CD that just didn't work.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Settembrini

Well, but what happened actually?
Nothing!
The policy was not altered retroactively.
The error was not made public to the interested parties (voters & competitors).
The award was not revoked.

ZOMG! So for 39 days they did nothing!?!

J'accuse! Release the hounds!

So, what do you call that? I call that misinformation to cover up a mistake.

I call that the begining of an email conversation 39 days ago, that may have easily lasted a whole month. During which time, as has been explained to you at that other site "they" decided to get an ENnies PR person in place to handle this problems, namely making announcements and mea culpas.

OMG! It wasn't instantly so it msut be a c-o-n-spiracy!

And that´s lying in my book.

Strange, I use similiar words for what your doing after having something explained to you to be roughly the opposite of what you keep spotting.

There also was a blatant lie:

The official statement that link-submissions weren´t allowed. Where in fact for certain games they WERE allowed last year.

From what I gather, though I haven't seen an official statement, it was to the affect of "mailed cds didn't work so links were allowed in a few instances".

Honestly if you can't accept that, I donl;t think a rational conversation can take place.

As much as I can understand the sympathy many people have towards the ENnie staff, because they hang around together a lot, there are things that have gone pretty wrong.

I don't know any of these people IRL.

All I saw as "wrong" was on Zach's end. There is privacy and discussing your problems with the people you have problems with like rational adults... then there is taking tall tales to people known to be 'enemies' of those your having a disagreement with.

And this is the "scandal" from my point of view, not that some mistake happened, but the way it was treated: cover up operations

Right. One guy said "Hey, maybe we can pretend it never happened? No one wil notice" and a discussion was born. Don't know how it ended, but I can guess it wasn't "Lets immediately shout it from the rooftops" so Zach got pissy and stopped trying to make things better from within the system and went all "rebel alliance" and sent the "damning evidence" to Pundit.

Many Bothans died... yada, yada...

@El Mahdi: It´s basically irrelevant to our discussion if the sources are "legal". Is it "legal" for some internet dudes to threaten Zach´s family? Because that´s what happened before Zach went public with the eMails. he was attacked by many hate mails, threats included.

Really?

Zach ponied up the first set of emails pretty quickly, why not this set. Or hey, get the police involved. Thats what I'd do.

Or he can continue waving at "email" proof. The last wasn't at all daming. I have serious doubts about any others.