Zachary Houghton resigns as an ENnies judge

[Varianor Abroad]

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.

I think this really bears more thinking about for the future. If a cutoff is not really a cutoff, would someone making a 10 or 20 day mistake be allowed in? I have no problem with the staff's decision, however I can see how this looks to some gamers like it's no big deal, to others that it's an accommodation to Monte since he's popular, and yet others that this may be a bit of a slippery slope but the decision to keep the award as is was fair.

 

[Master of the Game]

I think this really bears more thinking about for the future. If a cutoff is not really a cutoff, would someone making a 10 or 20 day mistake be allowed in? I have no problem with the staff's decision, however I can see how this looks to some gamers like it's no big deal, to others that it's an accommodation to Monte since he's popular, and yet others that this may be a bit of a slippery slope but the decision to keep the award as is was fair.

Agreed. It's not really "ok", but so long as it's used as a learning experience it's "reasonable."

Everyone has made a mistake, and some times it's just too late to take it back.

 

[Praesul]

Judges have never gotten paid. What Zach is talking about is an idea that was talked about but never implemented. There are lots of ideas that get talked about behind the scenes but only those policies that get announced are the ones you should be concerned with.

Are you serious..? You're seriously telling someone to nevermind what's being talked about, just mind what we've told you. That kind of blind allegiance is something the general public usually reserves for the Federal Government!

In all seriousness, policy discussion is an important indicator in the fundamental driving force of an organization or institution. If those in charge of policy continually talk about a certain policy change or idea, it is very likely that policy will eventually be enacted. If nothing else, it gives you some insight into the views of those in charge of the organization. People like transparency in organizations they are supposed to trust, including organizations that are giving their recommendation of a product through the doling out of awards.

Telling people to mind their own business does not build that trust. I, for one, continue to disregard most awards like these. They are as objective as political endorsements and negligibly more useful.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

So I actually listened to the entire podcast to understand what you state Meghan. The intro for the podcast was just horrendous- akin to the "12 year old writing" comment that you stated in your review of Changling for the "Best Writing."

That aside, your criticism of the products were very judgemental and an opinion. That's what Judges do as well. I am unclear as to what your "qualifications" or "expertise" are in comparison to the judges of the Ennies that would make your judgement any more or less valid than those of the judges.

I am sure anyone could go through any of the nominees and make similar comments about any of the books. Ultimately the aim of a consensus among multiple judges is to even out this natural and inherent bias.

 

[The_Universe]

How is this, and Psion's original quote, not rude?

It's cracks like this that give ENWorld the split personality rep that it has.

You're absolutely right, and I edited my comments as I thought better of it this morning.

 

[RangerWickett]

Are you serious..? You're seriously telling someone to nevermind what's being talked about, just mind what we've told you. That kind of blind allegiance is something the general public usually reserves for the Federal Government!

In all seriousness, policy discussion is an important indicator in the fundamental driving force of an organization or institution. If those in charge of policy continually talk about a certain policy change or idea, it is very likely that policy will eventually be enacted. If nothing else, it gives you some insight into the views of those in charge of the organization. People like transparency in organizations they are supposed to trust, including organizations that are giving their recommendation of a product through the doling out of awards.

Telling people to mind their own business does not build that trust. I, for one, continue to disregard most awards like these. They are as objective as political endorsements and negligibly more useful.

I think you're overreacting here. The ENnies board isn't some shadowy conspiracy trying to sell books of the companies they're friends with. They're just some gamers.

Think about it: how often have you been planning your game and come up with some massively stupid ideas for an adventure, or plot, or whatever? You come up with a boring villain, or an overpowered combat, or a plot that's too railroady. If you briefly flirted with the idea of taking away the players' magic items that they love so very very much, but decided it would be a bad idea, why would you want to tell the players about it? Sure, it might foster trust with some players that, "Oh, thank goodness my DM is wise enough not to steal my stuff," but other players might get upset over something that you were never seriously considering in the first place.

Feel free to ignore the awards (even though I'm pretty sure most people agree that the ENnies nominees are generally pretty awesome products). But please, don't turn an honest desire for transparency -- explaining how the books are judged, how the funds of the ENnies are spent, and so on -- into an overblown desire to police the thoughts of the judges. People are allowed to have an idea, recognize it as a bad one, and set it aside, without other people having the right to get on their case about it.

 

[fusangite]

Here's a cross-posting of what I had to say in response to Houghton's statement on TheRPGSite:

The ENnies feel that if you submit via link, you should pay an unprecedented submission fee to support the awards.

You say "unprecedented" like it's a bad thing.

You proposed an unprecedented new policy. Rather than rejecting it out of hand, other members of the ENnies community decided to build an additional feature into your unprecedented proposal.

The absence precedent is neither a good nor a bad thing. It just is what it is. I think your proposal had merit; and I think the proposed amendment answered the concerns that many of us had about its implications.

You proposed improving the awards. Others improved your proposal.

In other words, they are asking you to pay them to consider your product's quality for the award.

Indeed. Is there a problem with that?

Several individuals also wanted this as another "barrier" to the awards process, one of them going so far as to worry "we'll get tons of ill-considered crap that isn't worth the time to download". Hardly the right attitude for a judge, I'd say.

So you feel that people don't produce ill-considered crap? Or that if people do, no one would enter it in the awards if entering it cost the absolutely nothing. Beyond a tap of control-C followed by control-V and clickin "Send."

If your unamended proposal were in effect, what, exactly, would stop an 11-year old recording his gaming sessions, putting them on his MySpace page and then forcing the judges to listen to five hours of them? What would stop someone taking every gaming session he wrote up printing it to a PDF file and sending it to the ENnies juddging panel? Nothing.

Maybe you don't have anything better to do with your time than read anything and everything people feel like sending you. But I don't think a high-quality judging panel could be maintained if the opportunity cost of submission were reduced to zero.

I will tell you right now, I will not accept one red cent of that money.

Good! More money to cover administrative expenses.

I disapprove of this measure entirely, and find it to be a move in the wrong direction for the openness and accessibility of the awards.

Is there anyone you know of who has the resources to create five hours of quality podcast or a competent, thoroughly-tested publication who doesn't have $10?

Who are these mythical people who are producing product good enough to compete with WOTC who can't find $10? Because I'm just not seeing it.

Instead of making a move that in no way hurt the ENnies

One of two things is true here:
(a) there are lots of people who could submit product for whom $10 is unaffordable; or
(b) there are very very few people who could submit product for whom $10 is unaffordable.

If option (b) is true, your proposed policy is unnecessary; if option (a) is true, the awards will be hurt because the workload of judges will increase significantly beyond its already unsustainable level. The quality of judges and judging will go down if (a) is true; if (b) is true, not doing what you want will also "in no way hurt the ENnies."

but instead possibly improved awards participation, ease, and lowering cost for the entrants,

Let's not lose sight of the fact that they mostly followed your suggestion.

Last year, it cost entrants about $50 to produce six CDs and courier them to the judges and administrators. This year, it will cost $10. By getting an amended version of your policy adopted, you have reduced their costs by 80%. The costs for entrants were lowered. They just weren't abolished.

they chose to go with a measure that provided a new income source for the awards, but that would do nothing to grow the awards in any sense.

So, lowering the entry cost by 80% while increasing the awards' revenue will "do nothing to grow the awards"?

Bear in mind, this is despite the ENnies allowing several last-minute "usual suspect" and much-vaunted companies to submit via link at the very end of the submission period last year (for no charge, of course)!

Not having served as a judge last year I don't know what you're talking about and I don't know if this claim is accurate. Care to explain what you mean here?

I am, in a word, disillusioned with the ENnies.

Because people took you seriously, accepted 80% of your proposal and moved forward with a new policy to accommodate your concerns? What ing bastards!

I am disillusioned with this, I am disillusioned with the attitude shown towards podcasters and fan products,

Be specific here. The awards have bent over backwards, in my experience, to give these guys their due. In my view, they have gone too far in accommodating them.

and I am disillusioned with the purposeful lack of transparency in the awards.

Specifics please. What does this mean?

I am disappointed in the inconsistency shown on treatment of publishers and in dealing with technical issues.

Again, I see an accusation but I see no details that an observer could use to empirically verify your claims.

I was especially angered and extremely disappointed when it was suggested that we retroactively change the submission cutoff dates for Book of Experimental Might 2 so that it would go undiscovered that it was accidentally ineligible for the awards period in question.

This statement is an out-and-out lie. You should be ashamed of posting it.

You know perfectly well that it was discovered after the nomination that it was published outside of the eligibility period. If it is your contention that someone knew the product was ineligible for nomination at the time it was nominated and that this was covered-up, please tell me who knew, how you know they knew and why they did this.

I feel that judges should not be paid, but should be satisfied with the honor of being chosen to evaluate so much hard work (and all the books they receive on top of that).

I agree. And I have every confidence that these funds will be used not to pay the judges but to cover the costs they incur in the form of customs duties, travel and the other expenses that come with doing this job.

But I'm curious: clearly you don't think it is unethical to receive thousands of dollars worth of free product; why is the type of currency in which judges are compensated at issue? What is the actual ethical difference between getting a $10 dollar book and getting $10.

We have been entrusted to give every product a fair evaluation--there should be no bias or disgust at a product's chosen medium.

That's certainly true. But you make this statement as though it's connected to the other things you have said rather than just a motherhood statement you have chosen to affix to your diatribe.

I don't feel any of this is in the spirit of making the awards transparent and more open.

Openness and transparency have nothing to do with the issue over which you resigned or with the proposal you made. So, again, this is just a left field observation.

The air of prediliction towards certain favorites and an insular, incestuous culture for the awards themselves is a cancer which, if left untreated, will damage the awards' relevancy and standing.

Please stop lying. And if this isn't a lie, be specific: who are the judges who are biased, in whose favour are they biased and what is the evidence you are using to conclude this?

With that in mind, and because I will not be a further party to matters I do not feel are right,

Finally -- honesty.

What you are basically saying is: I think I'm right about everything and I cannot engage in cooperative decision-making with people who hold other opinions than my own. To which I say: good riddance.

I didn't vote for your re-election because it was clear to me that you are not a team player -- you don't seem to understand that a big part of being part of an elected group of representatives is learning to negotiate, cooperate and deliberate rationally. What I see from you is leaks, lies and extortion.

I have suggested the ENnies contact alternate judge Jeramy Ware.

Good. He's above reproach. I was proud to be his colleague the year we were judges. If anyone thinks Jeramy would tolerate the things you claim are going on: corruption, cronyism and bias, then they know nothing about this guy.

As I find it impossible to affect that change in this current situation, I can no longer support the ENnies.

Translation: As I feel that people should just do exactly what I tell them to instead of hammering-out a compromise with me on a new policy I'd like to introduce, I'm taking my ball and going home.

I'll have some more to say once I've digested the thread.

 

[Praesul]

The difference is that your awards are a public entity while my session planning is not. There's a huge difference in the desired level of transparency there, especially considering the fact that in one of the two examples there's a recommendation on how people spend their hard-earned money.

 

[fusangite]

Are you serious..?

I have to ask the same of you: have you heard of any other awards judging panel that publishes every syllable of its internal discourse? Name one awards organization in the entire world that has decided your idea of how deliberation should be run is a good idea.

Telling people to mind their own business does not build that trust. I, for one, continue to disregard most awards like these. They are as objective as political endorsements and negligibly more useful.

You know what builds trust in an elected body?
(a) Open elections
(b) Good decision-making

We have both with the ENnies. Insisting that every single post in the ENnies judging and policy formation forums be written for public consumption will just create more work for the judges and drive the real decision-making underground into PMs and e-mails.

Look at the elected bodies in the real world where all statements are made for public consumption, places like Congress. Where does actual policy get formed? Certainly not on the floor of the chamber -- it gets formed in caucuses and in closed negotiating sessions. Processes of persuasion, deliberation and negotiation never take place in full daylight; that's not how human beings work.

The best way to achieve transparency is through an open election process that produces a diversity of representatives coming from a variety of positions and backgrounds.

 

[Praesul]

To be clear I never asked them to publish everything they talk about in private. All I was attempting to say is that people always want to know what's going on behind the scenes. When they find out, I would argue, the best response is not to tell them, "Mind your own business, we tell you what we want to tell you, anything else you should just ignore!"

If something gets out there about your organization, don't try and tell people to disregard it. Try to tell them why they shouldn't be worried about it. Telling people to mind their own business does nothing to dispel the ethical questions, whether real or imagined, raised by Zachary in his blog. In fact, failing to respond to the allegations and implications seems to make them more believable.

To further clarify... I haven't heard anyone talk about the ethics of requiring a submission fee to people who make little or no profit from their intended submission. Neither have I heard a response about a judge's name being listed on the back of a submitted work.

We have heard some replies about the submission deadline issue, but how long has it been since the awards? Exactly how long did you need to formulate an announcement of the mistake which was made... isn't that the kind of transparency you're trying to achieve?