Zachary Houghton resigns as an ENnies judge

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...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Vocenoctum

First Post
Zach backs himself in the discussion at theRPGsite:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=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

First Post
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.

Cam Banks said:
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

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
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.
 
Last edited:

jdrakeh

Front Range Warlock
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

First Post
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.
 
Last edited:

El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
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

First Post
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

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
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.:cool:

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

Front Range Warlock
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.
 

Remove ads

Top