Battletech??? An Entire Product line as a single product???

[Rasyr]

the image linked on the file is probably b/c the publisher didn't submit a link to the actual product. which left the ENnies crew searching for something to link. likely the one included.

In the second image, the ENnies list several individual products. They then linked to an online store as "sample". Very few if any of the other entrants have "sample" links. And linking to something that is not the specific product or part of that specific product only causes confusion.

Add to this sample link, the statements from Master of the Game, that the entire line was entered as a single product, along with the ENnies page entry listing multiple products, and it gives the solid impression that an entire product line was part of the entry.

Last time that ICE entered, it included PDFs of previous products, and I made absolutely sure to mark those as not being entrants to prevent confusion, including the inclusion of text documents which specified what was entrant and what wasn't. And if I remember correctly, when doing a CD of PDFs, we were required to include the text file that lists the specific entrants.

That tends to work against the theory that he possibly mis-understood a single entry versus an entire product line entered as a single entrant.

 

[diaglo]

That tends to work against the theory that he possibly mis-understood a single entry versus an entire product line entered as a single entrant.

whatever. Master of Game posted. you can ask him. i was just speculating.

 

[Rasyr]

Who cares if part of the product was from 2 years ago or more; they're repackaging stuff that's, what?, twenty years old as a compilation for a new generation. The free book was done this year, which makes it eligible.

Was it a free book? Or was it a collection of PDFs of older books...

From the publisher submission guidelines on the ENnies page:
Products that contain material from products considered in previous years will not be considered unless they contain a significant portion of new material.

I'd say that the vast majority of the package being new qualifies as a significant portion.

Now if it were a single product, a single PDF, then I wouldn't be making this complaint. But by your own words, it was an entire product line. It was multiple products, not a single product.

Multiple products being considered as a single entry is the issue.

Plus, as the person in the first quote in this post mentions, the entire thing is just a PDF release of material that is many years old.

Soo.... by your reasoning, any newly created PDF of old gaming books are eligible for an award? For an award that is supposed to be (I presume) to new products?

Are you saying that if I (or more accurately, The Guild Companion) created a PDF of.. say Rolemaster Companion I, a book that has been out of print for over 12 years (and was actually published over 20 years ago), that it would be eligible for an ENnie because it had never been released as a PDF before?

And that nobody should point out the inherent flaws in the logic of doing that in an awards system that is supposed to be highlighting the best of the "new" products each year?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Hmm... Not sure I understand what's going on here.

I suppose that if, for the sake of argument, WotC compiled all of the "classic" D&D modules into one big boxed set or hardcover book and re-released them in 2007, it might garner an ENnie.

And I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Not sure if I should have a problem with the fact that I don't have a problem with that. I'll watch this thread to see if I am persuaded one way or the other.

 

[Dextra]

To address some of your concerns:

1. WRT the universe product mentioned, I must've included it by mistake. I wasn't sent a link for a sample, and the product desctiption on the entry form sent in by fax was nigh-illegible, so I included something that I probably shouldn't have. Mea culpa

2. Yes, there was vetting product. More than one submitted item from multiple publishers was not considered due to missing release dates.

3. Earlier on during the process, the judges agreed that entire lines of products could be considered as a single entry, that they wouldn't be constrained by "binding". Thus multiple items from the Battletech PDF line were considered, as was the Savage adventure path from Paizo and AEG's Warlords of the Accordlands line. By the same token, it was also decided that some products would be be served broken out from a line- for example the Hordes line of miniatures from Privateer Press. One miniature stood out from the others, so it was singled out.

4. Codifying the rules: we've done some. And we're going to deliberately let others go. It's the great thing about the rotating panel of judges and some flexibility in the rules and categories, they can react to changes in the industry.

5. Reissued product eligibility in future years. I'll look into it.

Finally, while I'm glad that you (and others) feel so passionately about the ENnies, I would like to reiterate that if you are serious about wanting to be involved in the ENnies and helping improve them, an email goes much farther than what could be misconstrued as something less than helpful.





The judge's blog in question is Master of the GAME, not the World.

 

[Roudi]

I have to say that, for someone with zero inside knowledge about this issue, it was pretty inappropriate to address this matter here.

This is obviously a matter where Rasyr, an observer outside of the ENnies process, has information which makes it appear that one product nomintated for an ENnie may not have qualified for such. Since all he has to go on are a number of website catalogs and a blog, he should have emailed a person involved in the ENnies process (such as Dextra) to inquire about the situation. That would have been the professional thing to do.

Airing this information in public forum makes no sense, especially for a publisher with no stake in the current awards. It really makes the entire issue circumspect, as the only conceivable reason for posting this information in public is to not bring any potential oversights to the attention of the ENnies personnel, but to expose perceived flaws/biases/incompetencies in the awards and its staff. If that is so, then the idea that the original poster, Rasyr, has no stake in the ENnies is debunked. One does not go so far out of one's way to point out the flaws in something that one ultimately is not affected by.

 

[Morrus]

I have to say that, for someone with zero inside knowledge about this issue, it was pretty inappropriate to address this matter here.

This is obviously a matter where Rasyr, an observer outside of the ENnies process, has information which makes it appear that one product nomintated for an ENnie may not have qualified for such. Since all he has to go on are a number of website catalogs and a blog, he should have emailed a person involved in the ENnies process (such as Dextra) to inquire about the situation. That would have been the professional thing to do.

Airing this information in public forum makes no sense, especially for a publisher with no stake in the current awards. It really makes the entire issue circumspect, as the only conceivable reason for posting this information in public is to not bring any potential oversights to the attention of the ENnies personnel, but to expose perceived flaws/biases/incompetencies in the awards and its staff. If that is so, then the idea that the original poster, Rasyr, has no stake in the ENnies is debunked. One does not go so far out of one's way to point out the flaws in something that one ultimately is not affected by.

Indeed. The lack of basic courtesies is astounding. Didn't this same thing happen last year, with the exact same poster?

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Indeed. The lack of basic courtesies is astounding. Didn't this same thing happen last year, with the exact same poster?

Yes, it did.

 

[Roudi]

A little research would indicate that certainly was the case.

ENWorld is not a clothesline. Dirty laundry does not air well here.

 

[Rasyr]

1. WRT the universe product mentioned, I must've included it by mistake. I wasn't sent a link for a sample, and the product desctiption on the entry form sent in by fax was nigh-illegible, so I included something that I probably shouldn't have. Mea culpa

So does that mean you will remove "universe" from the listing on the EN World page?

3. Earlier on during the process, the judges agreed that entire lines of products could be considered as a single entry, that they wouldn't be constrained by "binding". Thus multiple items from the Battletech PDF line were considered, as was the Savage adventure path from Paizo and AEG's Warlords of the Accordlands line. By the same token, it was also decided that some products would be be served broken out from a line- for example the Hordes line of miniatures from Privateer Press. One miniature stood out from the others, so it was singled out.

And next year, the judges could vote otherwise. Meaning that it is up to the whim of the judges, and not a set of fair guidelines. Which is exactly the point that I have been trying to make...

4. Codifying the rules: we've done some. And we're going to deliberately let others go. It's the great thing about the rotating panel of judges and some flexibility in the rules and categories, they can react to changes in the industry.

Having flexibility in the categories to be used is great and I fully support that because the categories CAN change from year to year as new product is released. However, having change-able rules is not great and it can only hurt the ENnies in the long run. One of your finalists in two different categories this year is not a new product, just a re-issue, in a different media, of old products.

If you are awarding excellent new products, then that creates problems for the stated goals of the awards. Plain and simple.

5. Reissued product eligibility in future years. I'll look into it.

Seems like it SHOULD have been looked into this year, since the entire Battletech entry is re-issued product. Apparently, if I had not brought this up, it would not have been looked into at all, because nobody apparently had an issue with it...

Finally, while I'm glad that you (and others) feel so passionately about the ENnies, I would like to reiterate that if you are serious about wanting to be involved in the ENnies and helping improve them, an email goes much farther than what could be misconstrued as something less than helpful.

The only problem with sending an email (and this portion of the response goes to Roudi and Morrus' comments as well, is that private emails can be ignored and forgotten.

By bringing this issue out in public it forces it to be addressed, and that was the goal, to MAKE SURE it was addressed.

Roudi, Morrus - Do either of you know that back in February, when I had my last little dust-up regarding the ENnies, that ICE sent Dextra an email and asked her what the server requirements would be for the ENnies? To have everything on one single server?

She had made a comment on rpg.net about how the ENnies did not have the funds for putting the ENnies fully on its own server. So, after a suggestion from fungasite and some of the folks on ICE's forums responding to the comment by fungasite, ICE decided that even though we personally felt that we could not enter (due to the lack of codified rules), we could still find a way to support the ENnies.

ICE asked for server specs so that we would put together a serious sponsorship proposal for the ENnies.

Dextra replied with a response saying that they would not take money from ICE.

I never once mentioned money. I sent her a second email to explain that. To explain that we were talking about ICE supplying the server, bandwidth, etc. I even explained (in both emails) that ICE would be willing to publicly recuse itself not only during the time that it sponsored the ENnies but that ICE would also be willing to publicly recuse itself for a number of years after the ending of any support to ensure that we were supporting the ENnies, not trying to influence them.

I never got a response to that second email.

Therefore, I have concluded that if anything is to be accomplished, it needed to be done in a public manner where it could not be ignored.

That is not "discourtesy" as Morrus attempts to claim. It is simply a method to make sure that the issue IS addressed and not ignored.

Fungasite, Cthulhu's Librarian and a few others can verify my comments about ICE's attempts to put together a proposal for sponsoring the ENnies, as I BCC'd the emails to them at the time that they were sent.

The judge's blog in question is Master of the GAME, not the World.

Yes, I realized that, and corrected it in one of my later posts (did not go back and edit the earlier post though).

A little research would indicate that certainly was the case.

ENWorld is not a clothesline. Dirty laundry does not air well here.

Considering that the ENnies refuses to stand on its own and continues to use EN World's forums as a central component of its system, then THIS is the place to bring such things up.

And doing it publicly ensures that it gets addressed, not ignored.

If you want to be childish and shoot the messenger, that does not change the fact that the message is still brought forth.