Dancey resigns as GAMA Treasurer

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Settle down Beavis.

Oh a New Kids on the Block fan are we?

 

[William Ronald]

Slightly O-T... I've been googling for that article for a while now without success; does anyone have a link to it?

I have had no luck either, Joshua. I think it was very well written and instructive. Ultimately, TSR failed on several levels but especially by not meeting the needs of its customers and expanding the customer base. The article might be godo for gaming industry executives to read, and might be good for business administration students to study. (There was a point during the days when TSR shut down that I thought it might be a very long time for new products.)

Getting back on topic, I think Dancey may have to work hard to restore his reputation. I just wonder why he wanted to gain access to the e-mail accounts of the GAMA board, the impact on GAMA, and where GAMA needs to go from here. Any suggestions on how GAMA can better serve its members and gamers in general. I was glad to read that Origins has grown.

 

[The Sigil]

Slightly O-T... I've been googling for that article for a while now without success; does anyone have a link to it?

My google-fu is strong. I searched for "dancey tsr hear" (remembering that Dancey said WotC was dying because it refused to hear its customers) and this was the first link.

http://www.atlasofadventure.com/Archive/TSR1997Buyout.asp

 

[Desdichado]

Muchas gracias, The Sigil!

 

[jmucchiello]

My google-fu is strong. I searched for "dancey tsr hear" (remembering that Dancey said WotC was dying because it refused to hear its customers) and this was the first link.

http://www.atlasofadventure.com/Archive/TSR1997Buyout.asp

It use to be in the ENWorld Articles and Interviews section but it seems to have disappeared from there.

 

[William Ronald]

Thank you, The Sigil!!!

Getting back to the original topic, I hope that the divisions within GAMA can be healed. It hink that GAMA can try to improve the state of the gaming industry. Perhaps when the air clears a little, people on different sides can try to find some common ground. I like to think that what unites people is more important than what divides us.

 

[Morrus]

Slightly O-T... I've been googling for that article for a while now without success; does anyone have a link to it?

I'll give you a clue - you don't have to look very far. Not far at all. One might say you're almost in danger of tripping over it right now...

 

[billd91]

But no one, not me and not Ryan, are suggesting that. No one. Only the people who have a knee-jerk anti-establishment reaction suggest that we do. What Ryan was proposing was that it be only one factor, not that "the best selling product wins".

Nor did I say that you and Dancey are saying that the best-selling product should win. But you are doing exactly what you are denying. Based on what you have said, you and Dancey are clearly of the opinion that high sales implies award-worthy quality and that's not necessarily the case. It might indicate that it's not cut-out bin quality, but that's all that can really be inferred from high sales.

The problem with this point of view, other than the base assumption that sales would be the "only" or even most important factor (it would not, at least not under Ryan's proposal), is twofold:

1. Making a point of being anti-sales almost guarantees that there will be an inherent bias against the best selling games.. it leads to the mentality that "if it sells well it can't be "art" ". So high-selling games actually end up excluded.

The point isn't being anti-sales. It shouldn't take sales into account at all. Any set of criteria that doesn't include sales figures doesn't have to be anti-sales in the sense that high sales disqualifies the product for consideration. The products should be considered within themselves and not how well they raked in the cash.

2. The basic assumption, combined with point #1 above mean that the awards become a marginalized event, totally out of touch with the gaming public. The average gamer thinks that (let's say) the "Guide to the Outer Planes" (which sold, let's say, 8000 copies) is a prize-worthy book, but instead the judges end up giving it to "le monde de les petites pommes de terre" by R. Bumquist Unknownguy that sold 8 copies and that reluctantly. It means the awards become irrelevant to the gaming public by completely ignoring the gaming public's taste. Which is why we have thousands of posts on this thread saying "why should i care about GAMA"?

And if "le monde de les petites pommes de terre" is an awesome game, better than the big sellers, but from a company that couldn't afford to print many copies doesn't it deserve to be recognized by somebody? Darn straight it does. I look at the Origins awards to find interesting games that I might have overlooked. So what if Guide to the Outer Planes is prize worthy? World of Little Potatoes might be as well. Why should the little guy get cut out at the expense of the big guy?
Like I said, if there are systematic biases in the selection process, there should be changes made to remove them. Another bias, in favor of larger companies with larger sales, shouldn't be added to the mix.

Origins has to decide whether it wants to be the Oscars of the gaming world, or if it wants to be the East Hoboken Independant Filmfest of the gaming world. It can't claim to be the foremost gaming awards ceremony if it willfully rejects giving awards to the foremost games, the ones people actually play. It may even be too late, in many ways the ENnies are becoming what Origins always claimed to be and almost never was.

Nisarg

Notice also that the Oscars aren't based on sales either and the Academy sometimes gets very strongly criticized when it does seem to respond to sales. Sometimes the two things happen to mix: high sales and quality. But not always.
Quality awards shouldn't reflect what's popular in the current gaming market. They should reflect what's GOOD in the gaming market. If the Origins categories are capturing that any more, they can and should be changed. But that's a far cry from rewarding high sales with awards for quality.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Nor did I say that you and Dancey are saying that the best-selling product should win. But you are doing exactly what you are denying. Based on what you have said, you and Dancey are clearly of the opinion that high sales implies award-worthy quality and that's not necessarily the case. It might indicate that it's not cut-out bin quality, but that's all that can really be inferred from high sales.

My understanding of the sales argument was that the awards were to automatically nominate the top sellers while still leaving slots open for other products. The idea was to make sure the top selling products were considered. The percieved problem was that some of the panel members were publishers who were using the awards as an advertising venue for their own products. There was a rather nasty year when Avalanche Press got six nominations and an award or two for products that were certainly good, but not great. While this is a subjective measurement, it should also be noted that there were publishers, like Malhavoc, who were completely overlooked which is odd. Additionally, Avalanche had also told ENWorld reviewers to go jam it when the ENWorld reviewers said that giving them a free product would not automatically merit that product a 5/5.

Now, this took place before Nikchick signed onto GAMA (IIRC) and she might have had other ideas (I simply didn't follow it closely enough to know). However, this was Mr. Dancy's solution to the problem of publishers abusing the nomination process.

 

[billd91]

My understanding of the sales argument was that the awards were to automatically nominate the top sellers while still leaving slots open for other products. The idea was to make sure the top selling products were considered. The percieved problem was that some of the panel members were publishers who were using the awards as an advertising venue for their own products. <snip>
Now, this took place before Nikchick signed onto GAMA (IIRC) and she might have had other ideas (I simply didn't follow it closely enough to know). However, this was Mr. Dancy's solution to the problem of publishers abusing the nomination process.

And a poor solution it is. A far better solution would be to widen the panel that makes and analyzes the nominations or require members to recuse themselves over decisions that involve their own product.
Auto-nominating best sellers just adds another systematic bias to the mix and that isn't right either.