Ennie-ness of ENworld

[Herschel]

I actually thought the nominations last year were a bit lopsided too. I find it a bit funny that people are in the "oh no, he says the judges are bad people" when I claim nothing of the sort. A bias does not have to be intentional or nefarious to be there, and a bias isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just not my cup of tea in this case.

I have a general disdain for "awards shows" in general for this very reason.

 

[IronWolf]

I actually thought the nominations last year were a bit lopsided too. I find it a bit funny that people are in the "oh no, he says the judges are bad people" when I claim nothing of the sort.

I think people just want to know why you think it was lopsided - in either year. You must think some great product was missed or not nominated? This, I think, is what people are getting at. You keep saying things were lopsided without saying why or what product was not nominated that leads to you think this.

A bias does not have to be intentional or nefarious to be there, and a bias isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just not my cup of tea in this case.

Did you look at the nomination list Mark posted? Some companies submit a whole lot more product than others. That alone leads to a natural bias that one is likely to see more of one company nominated than another especially if a company put out what is often credited with being a good product to begin with.

I have a general disdain for "awards shows" in general for this very reason.

So it might have been more accurate to say that you in general don't like awards shows and such than saying there is something wrong with the ENnies selection process?

 

[Wicht]

I actually thought the nominations last year were a bit lopsided too. I find it a bit funny that people are in the "oh no, he says the judges are bad people" when I claim nothing of the sort.

Actually I think you claimed they were "paizo fanbois."

Which I think reveals your bias.

It is entirely possible that they examined a multitude of entries, in a multitude of categories, and picked the ones they thought were the most excellent in each catagory. It could also be possible that Paizo actually did deserve to be nominated in the categories they were nominated in.

In my opinion, if the judges refused to consider Paizo simply because they were afraid of being accussed of playing favorites in the edition wars, (or because they were playing favorites) then that would be the real travesty.

That being said, Paizo has a lot of nominations, but they are still outnumbered by all the other entries. The voters will determine which they think are the actual best. I expect Paizo to do well but I don't expect them to sweep all their entries. My prediction, for example, is that they will win Best Game (and maybe Best Adventure) but not Best Cover. Furthermore, you do a disservice to the other entries (which again outnumber Paizo's entries) by not giving them due consideration on their merits. These games are more than just "things thrown in" to fill up the slots around Paizo. They are legitimate contenders and represent hard work and creativity on the part of those that produced them. Don't sell them short.

 

[Umbran]

I find it a bit funny that people are in the "oh no, he says the judges are bad people" when I claim nothing of the sort.

No. You didn't say they were bad people. But you implied they were not fit for their jobs. You said what they produced looked like a "fanboi list" - implying the judges themselves were fanbois. You want to claim that suggesting the judges were not able to see quality when they see it because their are slavishly devoted to one game is not somewhat insulting?

It isn't like a mortal sin, or anything, but... well, I was hoping for more substantial critique to support that sort of thing.

 

[Herschel]

I don't accuse the judges of anything. I thought glancing at last year's list looked like a 4E fanboi list, I play 4E, and I also didn't give it much thought.

IoW, I like movies a lot and I don't pay much attention to the Oscars or Golden Globes or whatever either. I find the nomination process flawed, regardless of personal tastes or which of the movies from the nomination pool actually win.

 

[Herschel]

So it might have been more accurate to say that you in general don't like awards shows and such than saying there is something wrong with the ENnies selection process?

Very close, actually. As above, I find the nomination process flawed, not the selection of winners from that flawed pool which may still be quality products.

 

[Crothian]

Very close, actually. As above, I find the nomination process flawed, not the selection of winners from that flawed pool which may still be quality products.

Okay, I'll bite. What is flawed about the nomination process?

 

[Wicht]

Very close, actually. As above, I find the nomination process flawed, not the selection of winners from that flawed pool which may still be quality products.

Assuming it is flawed assumes others were more worthy of being nominated. Such an acussation leads people to ask you: who should have been nominated but was not? Or are you suggesting Paizo did not deserve their nominations? If they did deserve it, what is your gripe? If they did not, who did? What would be your solution? Bar companies from being able to have more than a couple nominations a year? That seems rather arbitrary, especially if they are deserving of more. Perhaps, if you think the selection is flawed, you should put forth yourself as a nominee for being a judge in 2012.

 

[Herschel]

Ostensibly nominations are done by an unbiased, independent group for proper, unbiased awards. But when the submission of nominations is in effect another form of a provider's marketing plan, it loses it's validity as an unbiased process. That's my "gripe" not the quality of any product that may or may not be on the list.

 

[Crothian]

Ostensibly nominations are done by an unbiased, independent group for proper, unbiased awards. But when the submission of nominations is in effect another form of a provider's marketing plan, it loses it's validity as an unbiased process. That's my "gripe" not the quality of any product that may or may not be on the list.

Huh? So the judges and awards can be unbiased but if the people entering use it to market their books that ruins the awards?