Branstorming for ENnies 2003 -- improvements, changes, etc

[DPGDarrin]

If there is a problem, then it's the market share issue. So the resolution to the problem must address that - a mechanism which allows all publishers to compete on a level playing field. In other words, a situation needs to be created whereby each of the five nominees has a "virtual" equal market share.

So we need to figure out market shares ourselves. More precisely, we need only to figure out what the market share is amongst those who will be voting. So we ask the voters.

With a properly constructed survey, we could find out what each publisher's market share is within the limits of the EN World community. We won't be able to find out what the real global market share is - but we don't need to know that. We only need to know the proliferation of various pulishers' products amongst those who will be voting.

It might take some work - "market share" has to be defined in this context (and do we count the number of people who have a book, who have seen a book, or who have heard of a book?).

Morrus, no offense here, but I think that this could be a dangerous choice, and one that could jeapordize the legitimacy of the ENnies. As someone that has argued for reform, I'm not sure that this is the right way to go about it.

Some possible issues are that with this information, the actual distribution of different company's products could be determined to within a few thousand. I know that there are publishers that don't want that known to anyone outside of themselves, and I can't say that I blame them. Sure, you'd be doing it in a public, non-secretive way, but there could be some backlash generated.

Second, and more importantly, the fans and the majority of the publishers have spoken. I argued for a tiered system, and both other publishers and fans spoke up against it because they want the best products to be abe to compete head to head. Since the majority of the people involved are calling for no change, or little change, this would be going against the wishes of most people that have spoken up thus far.

Another issue is that by making the votes count according to market share, you will be essentially telling people that if they vote for one pblisher, their vote will count as a single vote. If they vote for another it might only be .75% of a vote, but if they vote for WotC (god forbid ) that vote might count only as .1% to .25% of a vote. I don't think people are going to want to throw their vote away in this manner, and the higher rated publishers will lose by a landslide because of this. I also think that us Americans like the idea of a single vote standing for exactly that - a single vote.

In addition to this, there is a very real chance that WotC will decide to not participate if they are subjected to this type of scenario. Even though they swept the awards, having WotC participate added a great deal of legitimacy to the awards.

And what if the popularity (or lack thereof) changes the market share of a given publisher between the time the survey is conducted and the time of the vote?

My point of view has changed a bit since this discussion began, but I think that you should listen to the people and the publishers that have voiced their opinions in this discussion. I would add a few categories that only smaller publishers can enter, and otherwise not change a thing. As Mystic Eye, and FFG, and others have said, their chances of winning against WotC next year may not be great, but if they do win, that win will be that much sweeter. Truly excellent products will be able to stand on their own. Also, after this year, I wouldn't be at all surprised if many people choose not to vote for WotC just to give the other people a chance (which in itself isn't the most fair thing).

 

[Blacksad]

I've changed my mind, the rating system seems the best now.

to Morrus: statistic are fine, but if voter can't understand how the voting process happens, I don't think that it will have a lot of credibility.

 

[kingpaul]

I've changed my mind, the rating system seems the best now.

If a rating system is assumed, are a panel of judges then even necessary? The voting public could rate all products that the publishers wish to nominate.

 

[Blacksad]

If a rating system is assumed, are a panel of judges then even necessary? The voting public could rate all products that the publishers wish to nominate.

The selection by the judges alow us to eventually look into or buy never before seen product, also, you take the risk of having to make a difference between a product rated 4.98 and one 4.97, while if we have only 6 or 5 product, we can increase the difference, a selected product rated 3, is one that we thought was good, but not the best as opposed to average in the standard rating.

 

[Krug]

By the way, are we allowing repeat nominees? Like someone else has mentioned in this thread, Dungeon/Polyhedron looks like a sure winner for Best Magazine.. every year!

I'd also like to see a category for Best Online Magazine. Asgard would not be allowed to compete, for obvious reasons, which is a pity because I think it is the best out there so far.

 

[Teflon Billy]

You got that right. However, I guess no matter what system you use, and no matter what wins, there will always be the odd person or people who will insist that the fix was in.

No one has expressed any feeling to me about my hnesty or lack thereof.

Have you been on the recieving end of any grief Colonel?

 

[Mark]

Expansion of the awards to include the Annual T-Bill Coolness in Publishing award! Chosen completely by Teflon Billy and given to the publisher that makes sure he has a good time at the convention...















(check's in the mail...)

 

[EricNoah]

No one has expressed any feeling to me about my hnesty or lack thereof.

Have you been on the recieving end of any grief Colonel?

Right in this thread, pretty much all of us have. You have to kind of read carefully...

 

[DPGDarrin]

I've been reading the posts and I don't think that anyone is really accusing anyone involved of fixing the competition. If anything, I think WotC's sweep of this year's ENnies comes largely from (for lack of a better term) a lack of understanding of just how much more marketshare WotC has over even the next most popular publisher. If there was a fix, I'm almost positive it was completely unintentional. Its very clear to me that everyone involved does this for the love of gamng.

 

[Nightfall]

I didn't think it was fixed Darrin. I just think that WotC gets a lot of brand name recognition at the expense of (what I feel) are better products.

I STILL don't buy that idea that OA is in any way comparably to the FRCS or the SLCS.