Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EricNoah" data-source="post: 306243" data-attributes="member: 4">My initial thoughts on Ryan's proposal:I see some problems and some benefits.Problems:&nbsp; Let's say Green Ronin submits Freeport: City of Adventure to the master ballot, and it gets voted into a category.&nbsp; Then what if they don't come through with copies of the product for the judges?&nbsp; Potential solution:&nbsp; forget about having the publishers submit copies of product, use some sort of community funds to do purchases of products as necessary.&nbsp; This master ballot method also means, then, that companies who might not even be aware of EN World or don't care about the ENnies could be on the master ballot as well.&nbsp; Is this a problem given the community-based nature of the awards?I'm also concerned about the fallout or aftermath of judging for the people elected as judges.&nbsp; We're already getting the odd person accusing us of being WotC sycophants.&nbsp; If the judges vote some odd way (or the &quot;popular&quot; way) I'd hate to think there would be anyone (fan or publisher) who would turn around and blame the judges for things not going their way.&nbsp; Judging would be a far riskier task to undertake.The &quot;final decision&quot; is taken out of the hands of the fans that made the site what it is.&nbsp; As many are pointing out, they resent the implication that the only reason they picked a WotC product is ignorance.&nbsp; Benefits:The final decision is made by people who have definitely read all the products.&nbsp; Should cut down on the amount of reading judges have to do.&nbsp; Five adventures will get a lot more attention than 30.&nbsp; Thoughts:There's no reason 5 has to be the magic number of judges, especially if there now is a much more reasonable amount of reading and coordinating to do.&nbsp; In fact, more judges would make for a more representative vote, and could cut down on bad feelings/situations after the judging.&nbsp; I could see a panel of 8-10 judges being feasible.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EricNoah, post: 306243, member: 4"] My initial thoughts on Ryan's proposal: I see some problems and some benefits. Problems: Let's say Green Ronin submits Freeport: City of Adventure to the master ballot, and it gets voted into a category. Then what if they don't come through with copies of the product for the judges? Potential solution: forget about having the publishers submit copies of product, use some sort of community funds to do purchases of products as necessary. This master ballot method also means, then, that companies who might not even be aware of EN World or don't care about the ENnies could be on the master ballot as well. Is this a problem given the community-based nature of the awards? I'm also concerned about the fallout or aftermath of judging for the people elected as judges. We're already getting the odd person accusing us of being WotC sycophants. If the judges vote some odd way (or the "popular" way) I'd hate to think there would be anyone (fan or publisher) who would turn around and blame the judges for things not going their way. Judging would be a far riskier task to undertake. The "final decision" is taken out of the hands of the fans that made the site what it is. As many are pointing out, they resent the implication that the only reason they picked a WotC product is ignorance. Benefits: The final decision is made by people who have definitely read all the products. Should cut down on the amount of reading judges have to do. Five adventures will get a lot more attention than 30. Thoughts: There's no reason 5 has to be the magic number of judges, especially if there now is a much more reasonable amount of reading and coordinating to do. In fact, more judges would make for a more representative vote, and could cut down on bad feelings/situations after the judging. I could see a panel of 8-10 judges being feasible. [/QUOTE]

Verification