Ennie-ness of ENworld

[Herschel]

So, in essence, they nominated a bunch of Pathfinder stuff, so you decided the rest of their nominations couldn't be good picks?

When you yourself admit that Paizo puts out good products, you decided that the prevalence of Paizo nominations was not because the company just put out a lot of good stuff this year, but because of bias?

Well, that's your choice, I suppose. I hope you can understand that it does sound a little odd.

Not quite correct, but close. I don't have a problem with the picks on a substantive quality level, but due to experiences here on the general forum my level of caring dropped precipitously as I was reading because of the trending bias I saw.

A somewhat similar example: I love Keith Olberman doing sports and socially could be considered liberal but I won't watch "Countdown" because of that show's particular content bias, regarless of possible agreement in some part of the content. It's one of those things I just avoid getting bogged down in.

 

[Crothian]

Not quite correct, but close. I don't have a problem with the picks on a substantive quality level, but due to experiences here on the general forum my level of caring dropped precipitously as I was reading because of the trending bias I saw.

What does your experiences on EN World have to do with judge bias in the ENnies? All five of the judges are primarily not from these boards.

 

[coyote6]

What is the perceived bias for or against, exactly? I'm confused!

 

[Herschel]

Not judges, but nominations. If the nominations aren't "unbiased" than the winner becomes biased due to the choices avail. (Unless the judges all make write-in votes if they don't agree with teh nominations, which I don't see happening.)

 

[jonesy]

Not judges, but nominations. If the nominations aren't "unbiased" than the winner becomes biased due to the choices avail.

Crothian already asked you, but: what nominations are missing?

 

[coyote6]

The way I understand it, the judges pick the nominees from products submitted by the publishers. If the publishers don't submit something, it can't be considered. Then the judges work out the nominees and honorable mentions. Then the public votes on the nominees.

So, if the nominees are biased, then either the judges are biased, or the bias comes from the publishers -- which would be bizarre ("we hate our material, so we aren't submitting it").

 

[Skeld]

You'll see what you want to see in the list of nominations. Paizo puts out some darn good material (on a monthly basis, no less) and they also had what was generally considered the biggest product launch at GenCon last year (Pathfinder RPG) which in itself is a modification of a ruleset that's still relatively popular. It shouldn't be a shock that they saw some nominations. You see bias, but I see that this was just Paizo's year to shine (after all, WotC had a good ENnies year after 4e launched).

There are always "good" products that don't get nominated, but that's because the nominees tend to be "excellent" products (or at least excellent in the category they are nominated in, like Interior Art). Whether or not you personally liked the nominations is a matter of taste, and that's why the awards are handed out based on a public vote. Keep in mind though, that the judges are only allowed to nominate products that were submitted. If it's no submitted, their hands are tied.

-Mark
2010 ENnies Judge

 

[Umbran]

Not judges, but nominations. If the nominations aren't "unbiased" than the winner becomes biased due to the choices avail. (Unless the judges all make write-in votes if they don't agree with the nominations, which I don't see happening.)

I understand that, but I'll restate the question others have been asking, and maybe that'll make something clear...

You yourself admit that Paizo makes good stuff. So, it is not unreasonable that they get some nominations. Even having a large number of nominations is not sufficient to indicate judge bias. If Paizo outright published more products than anyone else, you might expect to see more nominations, for example. Or maybe Paizo just had a really good year, and made a stack of good products!

However, if it can be shown that the judges frequently passed up products that were arguably better than Paizo's, then you might have a case.

So, can you name some worthy products that got passed up?

If not, your feelings of bias would seem... poorly founded from where I (and perhaps some of the others) sit. You're still free to have those feelings, of course, but if you're going to publicly proclaim that they look biased to you, and kind of disparage the judges in the process, you really ought to be ready to back that up - extraordinary claims, and all that.

 

[Wicht]

Wasn't there a dearth of Paizo nominations last year and a glut of WotC nominations? I might be misremembering, but I thought that was how it was.

I too thought Paizo did well this year but really expected it. Cubicle 7, I thought was the biggest surprise and I think they are going to be a company to watch.

I think, if one looks at it rationally, judges who refused to acknowledge Paizo had a big year and produced some excellent, superior even, stuff, would be showing true bias. If a company does well, they should be nominated, regardless of whether you play their game or not.

 

[catsclaw227]

I'll be honest, this is the first year that I haven't even looked at the nomination list. I used to follow the Ennies, but that was when 3PP were really involved in creating products for the game I played the most.

Right now, I am mostly just interested in 4e and Pathfinder, and I really don't care which is better represented by the Ennies, or which will "win more".

I have so little time in my life, I really only care about my F2F 4e game every 2 weeks, and I like reading through the Pathfinder APs.

If I am lucky, I'll get the occasional Battlelore game in with a buddy.