Zachary Houghton resigns as an ENnies judge

[The_Universe]

Are you accusing him of badwrongart?

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!

 

[Runestar]

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?

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.

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.

 

[Umbran]

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".

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.

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.

 

[Qualidar]

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.

...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.

 

[Morrus]

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.

 

[Morrus]

That just ends up saying everything yet nothing at all. How should they decide what constitute good products?

In any way they choose, as democratically elected representatives. You vote for the people who will judge the way you want them to.

What we don't do is tell the judges how to vote.

 

[Morrus]

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.

 

[billd91]

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.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

They should be correct because they are an authority in this field, not simply because they are in authority.

I don't know what constitutes 'an authority' but I think we all spelled out our qualifications pretty clearly.

Besides, a wat'ry tart threw a sword at me and told me I should be an ENnies judge. What more authority do I need?

 

[Varianor Abroad]

And lo, you shall know him by his crazy teeth.

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.