Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
2006 ENnies Judge Voting Poll/Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2631776" data-attributes="member: 7240"><p>My argument is not that campaigning is a thing we have not been doing up to now but should start. My argument is that campaigning already happens and helps to explain why elections go the way they do. I think one of the problems in this debate is that people are used to national and state elections in cities. ENWorld's elections, with their smaller number of voters and narrower range of issues look a great deal more like elections for school board and municipal council in villages and small towns. </p><p></p><p>Negative advertizing and the like are extremely rare in such elections. Often spending lots of money on advertizing or promotion tends to turn voters off because a small community often resents depersonalized and manipulative mass advertising strategies. Candidates, therefore, focus their activities as follows:</p><p>- highlighting their past and ongoing contributions to the community </p><p>- mobilizing individual voters with whom they are acquainted to (a) vote and (b) encourage their friends to do so</p><p>- working in the community as volunteers to demonstrate that their service to the community is not contingent on being elected</p><p>- avoiding public controversy and the appearance of undermining or insulting other members of the community</p><p></p><p>It is my view that this form of campaigning has been highly successful and widespread on ENWorld since the inception of the ENNies. The reason we have not seen negative advertising or naked self-promotion is the same reason these things are rare in harmonious rural communities. Not because they are proscribed but because they are ineffective.Again, you are skirting the reality: people campaign effectively without doing this. I gave an inventory of all the ways to campaign that have already been effective. You are deliberately conflating "campaigning" with a bunch of annoying online behaviour that we have yet to see here.</p><p></p><p>If the phenomenon you have described became a problem, I think two things would happen: (1) candidates who engaged in it would become less popular and (2) a sub-forum would be created to handle the traffic. Frankly, I think this behaviour would be self-limiting; most candidates would quickly realize that this behaviour was not helping them. </p><p></p><p>I don't see the current style of campaigning changing much. Popular people will use their personal networks; voters will take notice of candidates' service to the community; new members will be signed up; infrequent posters will be reminded to vote; successful candidates' posting frequency will increase in the lead-up to election time. That's the particular kind of campaign that's evolved on ENWorld and I think it meets our needs just fine.Clearly most voters agree with you because that keeps happening every year.While it might encourage some publishers. Others might be put off the awards or find their legitimacy reduced if judges with a proven track record were systematically disqualified from serving. In my view, there is actually a pretty small pool of people with the credibility in our peculiar little community that the successful candidates have. While others might do a good job, I don't automatically assume that candidates getting 40 votes will be as good at their job as those getting 400. Sorry but I don't think that we voters are stupid; I actually think we elect people, in large part, on merit. I don't accept that we're just flailing around randomly selecting people; I think that, broadly, we have criteria for what we think will make someone a good judge and we apply them rationally. What evidence do you have of this? What about voters who vote mainly based on product reviews? What about voters because they are associated with the candidate in real life? Also, I don't see a direct correlation between posts per month and votes. I see that Crothian has a lot of reviews, a lot of posts and a lot of votes. I also see candidates every year who have a higher posting rate than the winners but score significantly fewer votes. I think a lot depends on other contributions and a lot depends on post quality.</p><p></p><p>But I'm certainly not saying posting practices should not matter. The more actively engaged you are in a community, the more likely said community is to elect you as its representative. How have we come to seeing this as a defect of the system. </p><p></p><p>People who become judges work hard to keep their jobs. Sometimes, they moderate forums, answer rules questions or give advice on days they're not in the mood to do so because they have situated themselves as community leaders. Basically, you guys are complaining that it's unfair that people who contribute less to the community get fewer votes than those who contribute more. Make posts. Write reviews. This will cause you to <em>earn</em> the support of your community. </p><p></p><p>I believe strongly in candidates earning their votes through service and respectful engagement with their community. What I hear in this thread is a lament from people who don't want to invest the time, consideration and impulse control necessary to earn their community's trust and respect. Well, then, they'll know better next year, won't they? Why should people be able to walk in their first year they join and win an election with an unproven track record and limited relationship to their community. Why should elections in the gaming world not care about having a clear track record in one's community. How are voters supposed to learn from such a limited pool of data how closely a candidate's opinions on a wide range of gaming issues accord with their own? I don't buy that your suggestion of an essay-writing contest being an adequate substitute for a real track record.That's because it proves our point. It shows that when there is a non-incumbent who is perceived to be of the same quality as the incumbent judges, he wins. It disproves (a) your idea that the system doesn't let new blood in (b) your idea that the voters are not educating themselves and just voting based on name recognition (c) your continuing false assertion that we're pro-incumbent. We're pro-democracy. If this year's election swept out every incumbent, I'd still support ENWorlders having the unfettered right to select the candidate of their choice. What matters to me is the chance to vote for whom I choose.I'm not talking about assurance. I'm talking about quality. </p><p></p><p>Let me offer an example: I am a teacher of a grade 9 class of gifted kids. The class is asked to elect from its number five students to represent it in a debating contest. They elect a team of five candidates whom they believe to be the best debaters in the class. But after the election, I disqualify four of them because they got to go on the debate field trip last year and it's not fair that they should enjoy that privilege. So, the kids elect four replacements.</p><p></p><p>Is the new debate team gifted? Yes. Can the new debate team debate? Yes. Is the new debate team as good as the first team the kids elected? Probably not. In a contest between the two teams, the one the kids voted for initially would probably win. </p><p></p><p>That's essentially what I'm saying about our judges. If you eliminated the incumbents, you would probably get good judges. Would they be <em>as</em> good? Probably not. Why should we compromise both democracy and quality so that a handful of people who can't earn the support they need to get elected fairly "get a turn?"Umbran, that's just you moving the word "trust" around meaninglessly. You either trust their judgement enough to think they can pick the best panel unfettered by rules limiting their choices or you don't.That must be the confusion. It is for me. I just want the best possible judges. I really don't care about the feelings of a handful of perennially defeated candidates.Why don't you clearly enumerate these areas again?You see, this sentence seems indicative of the level of respect for the voters your posts seem to indicate.Okay. Let's suppose we need one new judge per year and this is a business requirement of the awards. First of all, we need to ask: has there been a year we haven't met this objective. If not, why are we proposing to change the system when it is already consistently delivering this outcome? </p><p></p><p>If not, then, in my view, we should interfere with voter choice to the minimum possible degree to deliver this objective. </p><p></p><p>One solution might be to move to a more proportional voting system; such systems allow small movements (let's say 10-20% in a 5-candidate pool) to band together and concentrate their votes around one candidate. That way, anti-incumbent activists could all but guarantee electing at least one of their number. CV and STV would be good for this; LV and SNTV might be improvements but much less effective. </p><p></p><p>Another solution, a small modification of our current system, would be to grant the top four judging positions to the four candidates winning the most votes and, if all of these are incumbents, awarding the fifth spot to the non-incumbent with the highest vote total, regardless of whether he placed 5th or 6th. This would constitute minimal interference with voter choice and would guarantee the presence of one non-incumbent every year. In my estimation, if we instituted such a rule, it probably wouldn't even be noticeable.I think this is worth considering and should perhaps be proposed in a separate thread. Alternately, you could go halfway and partner with the other gaming boards out there.I think you mean hidden results. Regardless of what else you do this year, this measure, at a minimum needs to be implemented to professionalize the ENNies' image.I vehemently disagree with such a system. The idea of guaranteeing the incumbents' positions, even if they get fewer votes than new candidates strikes me as cliquey and anti-democratic. I would hope that incumbents who are re-elected earn re-election and don't just coast. Plus, I would hate to give the handful of people who have served such a permanent position of privilege. ENWorld doesn't need a Canadian Senate. </p><p></p><p>However, I suspect that part of what you are getting at there is the idea of guaranteeing stability in the event that you dramatically enlarge the pool of voters as you just proposed above. I think a better way to deal with this is to elect hald the panel each year to two-year terms. That way, the panel can retain a memory in the event of dramatic changes in voting.This is a big question and it's late. If you could think more carefully about your needs from a judging panel and write a follow-up post, I would appreciate it. I think the issue I most need you to wrap your head around is this: "Is it more important for the panel to reflect the consensus of the ENWorld community or to reflect the diversity of the community?" Alternatively, you can send me an e-mail privately and we can hash this over in more detail off the thread.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="fusangite, post: 2631776, member: 7240"] My argument is not that campaigning is a thing we have not been doing up to now but should start. My argument is that campaigning already happens and helps to explain why elections go the way they do. I think one of the problems in this debate is that people are used to national and state elections in cities. ENWorld's elections, with their smaller number of voters and narrower range of issues look a great deal more like elections for school board and municipal council in villages and small towns. Negative advertizing and the like are extremely rare in such elections. Often spending lots of money on advertizing or promotion tends to turn voters off because a small community often resents depersonalized and manipulative mass advertising strategies. Candidates, therefore, focus their activities as follows: - highlighting their past and ongoing contributions to the community - mobilizing individual voters with whom they are acquainted to (a) vote and (b) encourage their friends to do so - working in the community as volunteers to demonstrate that their service to the community is not contingent on being elected - avoiding public controversy and the appearance of undermining or insulting other members of the community It is my view that this form of campaigning has been highly successful and widespread on ENWorld since the inception of the ENNies. The reason we have not seen negative advertising or naked self-promotion is the same reason these things are rare in harmonious rural communities. Not because they are proscribed but because they are ineffective.Again, you are skirting the reality: people campaign effectively without doing this. I gave an inventory of all the ways to campaign that have already been effective. You are deliberately conflating "campaigning" with a bunch of annoying online behaviour that we have yet to see here. If the phenomenon you have described became a problem, I think two things would happen: (1) candidates who engaged in it would become less popular and (2) a sub-forum would be created to handle the traffic. Frankly, I think this behaviour would be self-limiting; most candidates would quickly realize that this behaviour was not helping them. I don't see the current style of campaigning changing much. Popular people will use their personal networks; voters will take notice of candidates' service to the community; new members will be signed up; infrequent posters will be reminded to vote; successful candidates' posting frequency will increase in the lead-up to election time. That's the particular kind of campaign that's evolved on ENWorld and I think it meets our needs just fine.Clearly most voters agree with you because that keeps happening every year.While it might encourage some publishers. Others might be put off the awards or find their legitimacy reduced if judges with a proven track record were systematically disqualified from serving. In my view, there is actually a pretty small pool of people with the credibility in our peculiar little community that the successful candidates have. While others might do a good job, I don't automatically assume that candidates getting 40 votes will be as good at their job as those getting 400. Sorry but I don't think that we voters are stupid; I actually think we elect people, in large part, on merit. I don't accept that we're just flailing around randomly selecting people; I think that, broadly, we have criteria for what we think will make someone a good judge and we apply them rationally. What evidence do you have of this? What about voters who vote mainly based on product reviews? What about voters because they are associated with the candidate in real life? Also, I don't see a direct correlation between posts per month and votes. I see that Crothian has a lot of reviews, a lot of posts and a lot of votes. I also see candidates every year who have a higher posting rate than the winners but score significantly fewer votes. I think a lot depends on other contributions and a lot depends on post quality. But I'm certainly not saying posting practices should not matter. The more actively engaged you are in a community, the more likely said community is to elect you as its representative. How have we come to seeing this as a defect of the system. People who become judges work hard to keep their jobs. Sometimes, they moderate forums, answer rules questions or give advice on days they're not in the mood to do so because they have situated themselves as community leaders. Basically, you guys are complaining that it's unfair that people who contribute less to the community get fewer votes than those who contribute more. Make posts. Write reviews. This will cause you to [i]earn[/i] the support of your community. I believe strongly in candidates earning their votes through service and respectful engagement with their community. What I hear in this thread is a lament from people who don't want to invest the time, consideration and impulse control necessary to earn their community's trust and respect. Well, then, they'll know better next year, won't they? Why should people be able to walk in their first year they join and win an election with an unproven track record and limited relationship to their community. Why should elections in the gaming world not care about having a clear track record in one's community. How are voters supposed to learn from such a limited pool of data how closely a candidate's opinions on a wide range of gaming issues accord with their own? I don't buy that your suggestion of an essay-writing contest being an adequate substitute for a real track record.That's because it proves our point. It shows that when there is a non-incumbent who is perceived to be of the same quality as the incumbent judges, he wins. It disproves (a) your idea that the system doesn't let new blood in (b) your idea that the voters are not educating themselves and just voting based on name recognition (c) your continuing false assertion that we're pro-incumbent. We're pro-democracy. If this year's election swept out every incumbent, I'd still support ENWorlders having the unfettered right to select the candidate of their choice. What matters to me is the chance to vote for whom I choose.I'm not talking about assurance. I'm talking about quality. Let me offer an example: I am a teacher of a grade 9 class of gifted kids. The class is asked to elect from its number five students to represent it in a debating contest. They elect a team of five candidates whom they believe to be the best debaters in the class. But after the election, I disqualify four of them because they got to go on the debate field trip last year and it's not fair that they should enjoy that privilege. So, the kids elect four replacements. Is the new debate team gifted? Yes. Can the new debate team debate? Yes. Is the new debate team as good as the first team the kids elected? Probably not. In a contest between the two teams, the one the kids voted for initially would probably win. That's essentially what I'm saying about our judges. If you eliminated the incumbents, you would probably get good judges. Would they be [i]as[/i] good? Probably not. Why should we compromise both democracy and quality so that a handful of people who can't earn the support they need to get elected fairly "get a turn?"Umbran, that's just you moving the word "trust" around meaninglessly. You either trust their judgement enough to think they can pick the best panel unfettered by rules limiting their choices or you don't.That must be the confusion. It is for me. I just want the best possible judges. I really don't care about the feelings of a handful of perennially defeated candidates.Why don't you clearly enumerate these areas again?You see, this sentence seems indicative of the level of respect for the voters your posts seem to indicate.Okay. Let's suppose we need one new judge per year and this is a business requirement of the awards. First of all, we need to ask: has there been a year we haven't met this objective. If not, why are we proposing to change the system when it is already consistently delivering this outcome? If not, then, in my view, we should interfere with voter choice to the minimum possible degree to deliver this objective. One solution might be to move to a more proportional voting system; such systems allow small movements (let's say 10-20% in a 5-candidate pool) to band together and concentrate their votes around one candidate. That way, anti-incumbent activists could all but guarantee electing at least one of their number. CV and STV would be good for this; LV and SNTV might be improvements but much less effective. Another solution, a small modification of our current system, would be to grant the top four judging positions to the four candidates winning the most votes and, if all of these are incumbents, awarding the fifth spot to the non-incumbent with the highest vote total, regardless of whether he placed 5th or 6th. This would constitute minimal interference with voter choice and would guarantee the presence of one non-incumbent every year. In my estimation, if we instituted such a rule, it probably wouldn't even be noticeable.I think this is worth considering and should perhaps be proposed in a separate thread. Alternately, you could go halfway and partner with the other gaming boards out there.I think you mean hidden results. Regardless of what else you do this year, this measure, at a minimum needs to be implemented to professionalize the ENNies' image.I vehemently disagree with such a system. The idea of guaranteeing the incumbents' positions, even if they get fewer votes than new candidates strikes me as cliquey and anti-democratic. I would hope that incumbents who are re-elected earn re-election and don't just coast. Plus, I would hate to give the handful of people who have served such a permanent position of privilege. ENWorld doesn't need a Canadian Senate. However, I suspect that part of what you are getting at there is the idea of guaranteeing stability in the event that you dramatically enlarge the pool of voters as you just proposed above. I think a better way to deal with this is to elect hald the panel each year to two-year terms. That way, the panel can retain a memory in the event of dramatic changes in voting.This is a big question and it's late. If you could think more carefully about your needs from a judging panel and write a follow-up post, I would appreciate it. I think the issue I most need you to wrap your head around is this: "Is it more important for the panel to reflect the consensus of the ENWorld community or to reflect the diversity of the community?" Alternatively, you can send me an e-mail privately and we can hash this over in more detail off the thread. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
2006 ENnies Judge Voting Poll/Thread
Top