2006 ENnies Judge Voting Poll/Thread
- Thread starter Dextra
- Start date
nakia
First Post
Re: "New blood" and the Umbran/TB discussion:
There's discussion about what "we" want and need from judges and the election process, but it seems to me there are different "we's", each of which has different interests which impact the discussion. If we mean "we" in the broadest sense -- every member/potential voter – then the open nomination and “one person, one vote” mechanism we have in place seems the best. It’s the only way to assure everyone the opportunity to have his or her voice heard.
Part of the problem (if I’m understanding Umbran correctly), is that the “we” seems to be limited to a rather small percentage of the ENWorld population. Not everyone votes. How to expand that “we” lies at the heart of the issue. Will changing the categories/nomination procedures expand that “we”? Honestly, I have no idea. I don’t think anyone could know unless it was tried. The “we” of voter participation is balanced by the “we” of potential judges. Changing the nomination process/holding slots for “new blood” would limit that pool. I would want to keep both “wes” as broad as possible
There’s another “we”; the ENWorld “powers that be” – Dextra, Morrus, and the others who have taken it upon themselves to look out for ENWorld in a manner more encompassing than the average user. They have interests as well. I would imagine those include making the Ennies as fair, popular, and meaningful as possible, so that they become more recognized and known in the industry and the gaming community. If the “powers that be” feel the site and the awards best interests are better served by changing the nominations and/or voting process (because “new blood” draws more voters and thus, more involvement and popularity), then I think they are within their rights to do so.
I’ll also echo the sentiment that it would be helpful to keep the results hidden. Percentages haven’t changed significantly since Sunday; it seems decided already. Keeping the results hidden would at least help the “my vote does not matter because it’s already finished” attitude.
Anyway, that's my .02.
There's discussion about what "we" want and need from judges and the election process, but it seems to me there are different "we's", each of which has different interests which impact the discussion. If we mean "we" in the broadest sense -- every member/potential voter – then the open nomination and “one person, one vote” mechanism we have in place seems the best. It’s the only way to assure everyone the opportunity to have his or her voice heard.
Part of the problem (if I’m understanding Umbran correctly), is that the “we” seems to be limited to a rather small percentage of the ENWorld population. Not everyone votes. How to expand that “we” lies at the heart of the issue. Will changing the categories/nomination procedures expand that “we”? Honestly, I have no idea. I don’t think anyone could know unless it was tried. The “we” of voter participation is balanced by the “we” of potential judges. Changing the nomination process/holding slots for “new blood” would limit that pool. I would want to keep both “wes” as broad as possible
There’s another “we”; the ENWorld “powers that be” – Dextra, Morrus, and the others who have taken it upon themselves to look out for ENWorld in a manner more encompassing than the average user. They have interests as well. I would imagine those include making the Ennies as fair, popular, and meaningful as possible, so that they become more recognized and known in the industry and the gaming community. If the “powers that be” feel the site and the awards best interests are better served by changing the nominations and/or voting process (because “new blood” draws more voters and thus, more involvement and popularity), then I think they are within their rights to do so.
I’ll also echo the sentiment that it would be helpful to keep the results hidden. Percentages haven’t changed significantly since Sunday; it seems decided already. Keeping the results hidden would at least help the “my vote does not matter because it’s already finished” attitude.
Anyway, that's my .02.
Quickbeam
Explorer
Nakia makes a few excellent points, and I particularly like the suggestion to keep the SC position as a separate slot if the voting process is not adjusted. Although, having never been the SC, I cannot say whether such a position is reasonable to bestow upon a n00b ENnies panel member.
In any event, I will simply point out that this conversation is repeated in one form or another pretty much every year. And IMHO a few concepts are fairly unassailable:
1) Hiding the results will make it less likely that a potential voter skips casting their ballot because they believe the election to already be a foregone conclusion.
2) There are people who'd like to see a "fresh blood" guarantee/rotating panel/term limits, but nobody can say for certain whether or not this will improve the awards. It is likely to change them based on a whole array of subjective criteria and personal biases, but that doesn't mean they'll be any better...or any worse.
3) None of the pressure brought to bear on voting/election reform is connected to the effort provided by the incumbent slate of Judges -- TB, Crothian, CL and even JoeGK who's back in the hunt. They've done a fine job on behalf of the community, and unless a change is mandated or one (or more) of them voluntarily step aside, they will likely be elected each and every time they run.
You can argue that if it isn't broken, don't attempt to fix it, and I can see the wisdom in that point of view. I just wonder what the harm would be in assuring a couple different faces each year. Either way, I tip my hat to those who accept this responsibility on behalf on the entire EN World community!
In any event, I will simply point out that this conversation is repeated in one form or another pretty much every year. And IMHO a few concepts are fairly unassailable:
1) Hiding the results will make it less likely that a potential voter skips casting their ballot because they believe the election to already be a foregone conclusion.
2) There are people who'd like to see a "fresh blood" guarantee/rotating panel/term limits, but nobody can say for certain whether or not this will improve the awards. It is likely to change them based on a whole array of subjective criteria and personal biases, but that doesn't mean they'll be any better...or any worse.
3) None of the pressure brought to bear on voting/election reform is connected to the effort provided by the incumbent slate of Judges -- TB, Crothian, CL and even JoeGK who's back in the hunt. They've done a fine job on behalf of the community, and unless a change is mandated or one (or more) of them voluntarily step aside, they will likely be elected each and every time they run.
You can argue that if it isn't broken, don't attempt to fix it, and I can see the wisdom in that point of view. I just wonder what the harm would be in assuring a couple different faces each year. Either way, I tip my hat to those who accept this responsibility on behalf on the entire EN World community!
Teflon Billy
Explorer
Quickbeam said:
We really can't make it a seperate position, and here's why...
Basically, what the SC does is get all of the submissions sent out to him from the publishers, sort them into seperate "piles" for the judges, and mail them out.
If the SC isn't a Judge, we add one more set of Shipping Expenses then would otherwse be incurred as the Judge (who used to be the SC) no longer gets his stuff directly.
nakia
First Post
Teflon Billy said:
Makes sense, at least from a cost point of view. I'm sure those who have been judges before have kicked this around a bit already and know more about the cost/benefits than I do. Still, it seems like A LOT of extra work, on top of the significant work associated with judging.
Umbran,
I voted for you because I normally see a high level of reasoning from you but I really question your idea that the way to compensate for low voter turnout is to restrict voter choice.
In your early posts on this thread you really emphasized that there was a problem in there being very low turnout and that many of your concerns sprang from that source. It seems to me that our goal should be to increase turnout, not to assume that low turnout is a permanent feature of the system and try to somehow compensate for it.
In my view, having strong incumbents in the system does not simply maintain my right to vote for the candidate of my choice, it also increases voter turnout in two ways: first of all, incumbents tend to be higher-profile individuals who will alert people to the election and mobilize them to vote more effectively than lower-profile, less popular individuals; secondly, those wishing to challenge incumbents will know that they have to mobilize a significant number of voters in order to win.
If we restrict voter choice while simultaneously reducing the incentive to mobilize voters, turnout will drop, as will the legitimacy of the awards. If people want term limits, they have to show that these limits will increase turnout/legitimacy; if they can't, I'm not sure what these limits are for.
I voted for you because I normally see a high level of reasoning from you but I really question your idea that the way to compensate for low voter turnout is to restrict voter choice.
In your early posts on this thread you really emphasized that there was a problem in there being very low turnout and that many of your concerns sprang from that source. It seems to me that our goal should be to increase turnout, not to assume that low turnout is a permanent feature of the system and try to somehow compensate for it.
In my view, having strong incumbents in the system does not simply maintain my right to vote for the candidate of my choice, it also increases voter turnout in two ways: first of all, incumbents tend to be higher-profile individuals who will alert people to the election and mobilize them to vote more effectively than lower-profile, less popular individuals; secondly, those wishing to challenge incumbents will know that they have to mobilize a significant number of voters in order to win.
If we restrict voter choice while simultaneously reducing the incentive to mobilize voters, turnout will drop, as will the legitimacy of the awards. If people want term limits, they have to show that these limits will increase turnout/legitimacy; if they can't, I'm not sure what these limits are for.
Last edited:
Another question I am interested in as a voting systems advocate: do people feel that the current multi-member plurality system is adequate? There are a number of other available options: Single Transferrable Vote, Single Non-Transferrable Vote, Limited Vote and Cumulative Vote. They might reduce or increase voter turnout. They may produce different results.
I think it's worthwhile asking ourselves what we can do to promote better turnout. One is keeping choice as broad as possible. Another is to choose the system that best encourages people to vote. Another, probably, is to increase the privileges judges enjoy so as to encourage people to run for the position and mobilize voters. There are probably other ways too. I'm interested in hearing thoughts on these too.
I think it's worthwhile asking ourselves what we can do to promote better turnout. One is keeping choice as broad as possible. Another is to choose the system that best encourages people to vote. Another, probably, is to increase the privileges judges enjoy so as to encourage people to run for the position and mobilize voters. There are probably other ways too. I'm interested in hearing thoughts on these too.
Quickbeam
Explorer
Teflon Billy said:
Fair enough. I just thought this might be a viable method of grooming future judges, sort of a J.I.T. (Judge In Training) program. As you (and others) have pointed out, being an ENnies Judge is very demanding and it might not be a terrible idea to give folks interested in the job a taste of what they're signing on for.
Just something for you, Crothian, CL, Dextra and the whole ENnies gang to chew over.
