2006 ENnies Judge Voting Poll/Thread

[Quickbeam]

Now it's time for the Entish candidate to speak for the trees -- since I do not believe the Lorax is available.

I believe that my own attempts to secure a spot on the panel are representative (to a degree) of what we see happening across the board. First, I'm gonna go out on a limb and attempt to explain why I'm doing so poorly this year in comparison to my efforts two or three years ago. IMHO there are several factors which play critical roles in the number of votes I've received each year. In the past 12-14 months my post count has nearly flatlined, whereas I was very vocal prior to that. Post count by itself only matters in the sense that it means an individual is more visible. Yet, being visible increases the likelihood that you will be remembered by other community members come election time. And while I do not agree that there is no such thing as bad publicity, notoriety does have its benefits.

Furthermore, a large body of work (high post count) also means that you are probably engaging in conversations/debates of some duration with other community members. Certainly it's possible that you just post an voluminous array of superficial commentary, but it's more likely that you are also taking part in ongoing community discussions. That means folks will begin getting a better impression of you as a person, and unless you're a flamethrower (or completely irrational/obnoxious) it is likely to increase the level of respect you garner. I believe that to be true even when you hold the minority opinion -- perhaps even moreso in such situations if you defend your position well.

I know that I received T-Bill's vote (thanks Jeff!) and maybe votes from other notable EN Worlders too. I'd like to think that's becuase my participation in this community is generally positive (albeit less frequent) and centered around the intent to help move things forward. I firmly believe that continued visibility and constructive participation will pay off in a spot on the panel somewhere down the road.


...until then...
I would like to reaffirm my support of an election process which insures some degree of turnover in the ENnies Judging Panel from year to year. I know T-Bill and Crothian personally and have voted for them once again despite my desire to see new Judges find their way onto the panel. I vote for them because I respect their dedication, commitment, insight and sincere desire to see excellence in the RPG industry recognized. I also voted for CL (as I did two years ago when I drew into contention for a spot on the panel) because I value the experience overlap his career provides when it comes to evaluating material.

But that does not mean others (Xath, Umbran, myself, etc.) are incapable of exhibiting all of those same traits while providing a different perspective. We could debate all year until the next set of elections whether or not change for the sake of change is "good." I'm not suggesting that it is. What I'm suggesting is that we won't know whether guaranteed turnover of a spot (or more) each year to a rookie judge is "good."

We all know that the job performed by Jeff, Chris, Rich, et al, is admirable. I have no idea whether forcing change will result in something better, worse, or simply different. I'd just like to see it happen, for both selfish reasons and because I'm a firm believer in giving other folks a chance to shine.

 

[Umbran]

I certainly don't think Judgeship is a "right", and I'm not sure where you get that.

From "punishment". Holding back an opportunity is only punishment if it's something you'd expect to be allowed to do otherwise.

I mentioned it above once, but I think it kind of got lost, so at the risk of repeating myself; if the general populace wants incumbent judges out of the Judging Panel, a mechanism is already in place for making that happen.

Not really, TB. At the moment, each individual imposes his own personal set of criteria, right? There is no coordination, which means none of the criteria really get met. If all 400 people say, "I only want to see three incumbents on the panel", and they don't all vote for the same three incumbents, you likely get more than three incumbents on the panel.

Here's the funny thing - by your logic, we shouldn't have judges at all! You argue against putting a "filter" on who can be a judge - but the judges themselves act as a filter for the products! If we really want to be democratic, why don't we skip the judges altogether, and just let the populace vote on the products they like directly? If the populace is so good at enforcing their own thoughts through voting, the judges are redundant, and in fact stand in the way of true democracy and the will of the people.

If you start monkeying with the system because you don't like the results generated by the voting public...well, yeah, my mileage varies on that one quite a bit

See above - pot calling the kettle black, and all that. You're part of a system that already explicitly doesn't trust the voting public to figure things out for themselves, TB.

And you're certain that the way to draw interest from the crowd is to eliminate incumbency?

Certain? Of course not. Certainty is for people who don't want to think.

Answer it.

Okay, let's see... At what point do you make it a raffle? Well, when you feel that random choice among the candidates will do as good a job of meeting the needs as the vote will. Note that we have not yet agreed on what "the needs" are.

You seem to think the only needs that ought to be considered are the immediate ones of the panel itself. I'm thinking that the health of the awards are not served by being so focused in our concerns.

Simple. Worry about it when that happens.

Eh, it is happening right now. Anyone familiar with this place could pick the winners from the list of candidates TB.

And yes, the voting has favored the incumbents; but in the absence of misconduct or incompetence it should favor them.

I am not sure I agree. But that's a thread of discussion all on it's own.

...even the number of voters participating grows every year (and seems to be this year as well) which is the concern you expressed.

I don't have access to the data, but my impression is that the growth of participation may not be keeping up with growth of the site. I fear that the percentage of participating folks is decreasing, and that's not at all good.
\

And yet you posit some kind of explosive growth in voter turnout--rather than the steady growth we've seen--if you eliminate (or limit) incumbency.

Follow your own advice about putting words in mouths, TB. Never did I say, or imply, "explosive" anything. I suggested that increasing competition might increase participation, and that limiting incumbency is one way we might increase competition.

 

[Hairy Minotaur]

Please preface with "In my opinion" as I am not all-knowing.

I voted the way I did because, I knew I was not going to be a judge, and so in looking at the candidates I picked the 5 people who most closely match my opinions (on gaming products at least).

Teflon Billy was an easy choice (for me anyway as I often ask myself WWTBD? ) and the other 4 people are all below the top half of the current votes.

I think TB has a valid point, if there is such an outcry from people over who's going to get the judgeships, then you would have seen it reflected in who actually got the votes.

If you think that TB doesn't deserve another run at it, then don't vote for him. But that apparently didn't happen as he leads in votes. If you think that it's a waste of time as the top five have such a lead, that voting would be pointless, you might have an argument there since the total # of votes is well below the total # of members on this site. If that is the case however then a candidate would only need 90% of their total vote within the first day to create such a gap to discourage any other voting.

If the remaining members came to vote and saw the totals and were outraged by who was leading and they all voted for the those at the bottom of the list, then the list gets flipped on it's end. That's not happening however, so either people are comfortable with how this is shaping up or they aren't motivated to change it.

Either way I think we'll continue to see these kinds of results year after year, until something causes enough of the remaining members to vote.

 

[JoeGKushner]

How hard would it be to send an e-mail to those registered with En World with a link to the voting poll reminding them to vote? I know RPG.net uses something similiar for that with the Quicksilver reviews to insure that we're checking the lists of new products.

 

[Umbran]

After three days the voting has slowed down, at 408 votes this is 75% of last years turnout.

Hm. Another piece of data we dont' have handy - the time-dependance of voting. My vague recollection is that last year was similar, in that there was an initial burst of voting, and then the rate of new votes bottomed out. It would be itneresting to see a comparison of votes per day for each year.

 

[Teflon Billy]

From "punishment". Holding back an opportunity is only punishment if it's something you'd expect to be allowed to do otherwise.

Well, I could use your terminology and refer to it as "Wihholding priveleges", but I think--at least from a parenting background--that the therms could be used almost interchangable, and I don't reeally intend to argue semnatics.

Not really, TB. At the moment, each individual imposes his own personal set of criteria, right? There is no coordination, which means none of the criteria really get met. If all 400 people say, "I only want to see three incumbents on the panel", and they don't all vote for the same three incumbents, you likely get more than three incumbents on the panel.

I have no idea if that's true, but I think you've proven on more than one occasion that you have a better grasp of voting models than I do.

Here's the funny thing - by your logic, we shouldn't have judges at all! You argue against putting a "filter" on who can be a judge - but the judges themselves act as a filter for the products! If we really want to be democratic, why don't we skip the judges altogether, and just let the populace vote on the products they like directly? If the populace is so good at enforcing their own thoughts through voting, the judges are redundant, and in fact stand in the way of true democracy and the will of the people.

Again with the putting words in my mouth

The reason I think we should have judges is that they are the ones who ensure that unfamiliar products get a fair look...there are far too many products on the market for most people to have familiarized themselves with them all.

The reason I don't apply this same thought to the Judging Panel is that it is possible for the voting public to be acquainted with their candidates...if only from the nominations thread and general interaction, a level of familiarity that is much harder to accomplish with most every product released last year.

You seem to think the only needs that ought to be considered are the immediate ones of the panel itself. I'm thinking that the health of the awards are not served by being so focused in our concerns.

Now I know you misunderstand me. I don't care one whit about the "needs" of the Panel other than that it be capable of doing its job. Make no mistake, it's said often enough, but it bears repeating: this job is hard. Every year we try to ease the time crunch on the judges, but it almost always comes down to a massive no-sleep. no-anything else marathon session in the last few weeks.

I think most anyone on the panel might be capable of it, but I know the incumbents are.

Eh, it is happening right now. Anyone familiar with this place could pick the winners from the list of candidates TB.

Then why, if it's as easy as that, is there anyone but the Myself, CL, Crothian, Joe and Diaglo with any votes at all? I think you overstate the surety of it.

Why do you feel the winners are obvious? I voted early on and never would've expected Diaglo to have such a strong showing (no offense David).

I agree the results needed to be hidden ("Secret Ballot") , but "Anyone familiar with this place could pick the winners from the list of candidates" is a statement I disagree with.

I am not sure I agree. But that's a thread of discussion all on it's own.

Unfortunately, it's the heart of my argument, so if you could spare more than a sentence dismissing it, I'd be really interested.

Maybe you can boil down somehting quick on why you think that "in the absence of misconduct or incompetence" incumbent candidates should be excluded.

I don't have access to the data, but my impression is that the growth of participation may not be keeping up with growth of the site. I fear that the percentage of participating folks is decreasing, and that's not at all good.

I don't have access to the data either.

Follow your own advice about putting words in mouths, TB.

What, and work with a handicap

Never did I say, or imply, "explosive" anything.

Ok, I misused an adjective.

I suggested that increasing competition might increase participation, and that limiting incumbency is one way we might increase competition.

Can we agree that you were implying a "greater level of voter participation growth" than the steady growth we are currently seeing?

Otherwise I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

Hm. Another piece of data we dont' have handy - the time-dependance of voting. My vague recollection is that last year was similar, in that there was an initial burst of voting, and then the rate of new votes bottomed out. It would be itneresting to see a comparison of votes per day for each year.

I'm wondering if there will be a "Rush" on the last day.

As I said before, the voting patterns (percentages) from each day to the next are remaining consistant.

The Major "voter intrests" so far seem to be

Experience
"New Blood"/Diversity
Reviewers
Contrairians (or devil's advocate if you prefer)

(*this is a an anidotal list)


It looks like all the judges are from the North American Continent (Hi Bill), so geography does not seem a major role this year.

The Submission Coordinator issue was made almost moot by Cthulhu's Librarian volunteering. (If he were to for some reason drop out, then Xath is the next highest SC, allowing her to out manuver Ankh-Morpork Guard. Not that I'm wishing for it. )

 

[Quickbeam]

OK folks, as a diversion from the ongoing debate I shall commence my amazing push up the polls. Maybe

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

The Submission Coordinator issue was made almost moot by Cthulhu's Librarian volunteering. (If he were to for some reason drop out, then Xath is the next highest SC, allowing her to out manuver Ankh-Morpork Guard. Not that I'm wishing for it. )

Heheheh. That would be how things work for me normally.

It'd be nice if there was a way to get more people to vote, though. No idea how...that's really a problem that every system involving voluntary voting runs into.

 

[JoeGKushner]

The Submission Coordinator issue was made almost moot by Cthulhu's Librarian volunteering. (If he were to for some reason drop out, then Xath is the next highest SC, allowing her to out manuver Ankh-Morpork Guard. Not that I'm wishing for it. )

Well good luck to him on that. I did it for one year and man, I wanted people to die at the end of that shift. Ugh. Worst gaming related memory evar!