ENnies discussion thread

[Wulf Ratbane]

It seems any of the recommended systems is going to produce the same result as a straight majority vote (one vote, one product), either due to "strategic voting" designed to elevate your personal favorite and "knock out" its closest competitor, or the fact that unknown/niche products are going to sink to the bottom anyway.

Hey, I'd love to throw my support behind a system that would allow one of my products to actually win, but how could I honestly say such a system would be fair to other nominated products with a wider audience?

But then I certainly don't want to be sitting around feeling like Nader just won the presidency through some crackpot voting scheme.


Wulf

 

[Conaill]

Gah, there's no pleasing some people!

Fusangite, I gave you lots of references so you could go read up on Approval Voting yourself. It's been a staple technique for single-winner elections that any political scientist who's been around for the past 10-20 years would be very familiar with. If you've never heard of it, I'm sorry but that does not say much about your status as an "informed amateur".

No, it is not a "crackpot scheme". Nor is it something dreamed up by a bunch of looney Nader supporters to take over the world. A voting method used by close to half a million scientists and engineers (including the US's most prestigious scientific organization - the National Academy of Sciences). Does that sound like a crackpot scheme?

Sure, it is not as widely used as IRV in politics. IRV (Alternative Vote) is used in Australia, Ireland and Fiji. Approval Voting is used... well, by the United Nations so far. Then again, IRV has been around for 130 years (STV for 150 years), Approval voting for a mere 30. And I'm sure we wouldn't want to use widespread use in politics as a benchmark for quality, otherwise we might as well use winner-takes-all.

Got to run. I'll be working through most of the weekend (which is partly why I've preferred posting links rather than go into long(er) diatribes), but I'll try to post some "Ennified" examples later this weekend, if I can find a scrap of time...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Approval Voting is used... well, by the United Nations so far... Does that sound like a crackpot scheme?

... must... bite... tongue...

 

[Mixmaster]

Man alive - this year's race for Ennie Judges is loaded!

The candidates that will win:
Teflon Billy
PC
Crothian

Other likely candidates for remaining two positions:
alsih2o
darkness - two-time judge
joegkushner - judge last year
Cthulhu's Librarian - judge last year

Anyone wonder why few people have tossed their respective hats in the ring lately? You might have better luck running against Putin

Or Fidel Castro. (can kid about it since I am Cuban)

Yeah, the odds are long on a "new jack" getting in.

 

[Nisarg]

Origin Awards has like three categories for RPGs so the ENnies really covers it a lot more thoroughly. And the ENies will highlight the best of d20 as well as the best of other systems. Ya, all the winners won't help you out, but some of them will.

Not to mention that the ENnies are at least partly a populist award, meaning the likelihood that the choices will actually have some kind of ever-so-slight relationship to games someone actually gives a about is considerably higher than in an "award" chosen by a gaggle of self-annointed "experts in the field", which instead has a considerably higher likelihood of the choices being the product of nepotism, corruption and elitism.

Nisarg

 

[Nisarg]

I don't think there should be "term limits" for judges, if someone continues to be trusted to be a judge then so be it. Those of us in the running who've never been judges before just have to make a point to be *ahem* creative in our campaigning...
For example, I notice that all the incumbent judges have some mighty fine kneecaps.. it'd be a real shame if something were to happen to them..

Nisarg

 

[Umbran]

Debating the systems to death is pointless, pick a system and move ahead with it.

Heh. To death? Heck, we haven't debated this one to a mild wounding yet

There is somevalue to such debate, if only to the debaters in flexing their rhetorical muscles. And, the folks who actually make the decisions get to see some of the strengths and weaknesses of each sytem before they make their decision.

Also, in the past the Ennies have caught a bit of criticism on a number of factors. I think it is a good thing to show that we at least take the awards seriously enough to give our methods scrutiny.

It seems any of the recommended systems is going to produce the same result as a straight majority vote (one vote, one product), either due to "strategic voting" designed to elevate your personal favorite and "knock out" its closest competitor, or the fact that unknown/niche products are going to sink to the bottom anyway.

Perhaps not, Wulf, which is part of the point.

Straight majority vote and Approval Voting both have a notable weakness - they have no mechanism to look for consensus if it doesn't appear in the first balloting. You can get stuck with a "winner" that only 30% or 40% of the respondants voted for. Some folks find that acceptable. For fan awards, I think it'd be nice if we put a bit of effort into digging deeper into the opinions of the voters. Especially when in the past the number of ballots cast hasn't been particularly high.

(In fact, the best way to vote *against* products would be to abstain from voting on them - talk about strategic voting!)

Funny thing that - if I don't want something to win, I don't vote for it! What a novel idea!

This point holds both for AV and IRV, so it really doesn't differentiate between the two systems.

 

[Crothian]

Or Fidel Castro. (can kid about it since I am Cuban)

Yeah, the odds are long on a "new jack" getting in.

Two years ago I was a new jack and made it. Three years ago I tried to become a Judge and got 6 votes. Only TB has been a Judge every year. Most of the Judges were "New Jacks" at some point. It is not hopeless.

 

[SableWyvern]

In the second example I had the strategic voters put who they though least likely to win to prevent the "Leading Canidate" from winning

The author of "All Crunch, No Fluff" wanted to make sure that, not only did "E" not get his vote (he only voted for three out of 5), but that the least-likely canidate would get his vote instead of E, if "A" is eliminated. Due to multiple people using this strategy the least likely canidate "D" actually won. It depends on Author of "A" seeing "C" as a threat instead of an alternative.

Thing is, with IRV, the author of A does not help his cause by using this system of voting. It's not strategic voting for advantage, merely strategic voting from bitterness. Unless we are assuming the voters will vote from spite, I don't think this should be an issue. If are assuming this, then, IMO, the Ennies are a farce anyway.

One of the main points being made by the IRV advocates in this thread is that, once he has been eliminated, there is no reason for Author A not to give kudos where it is due.

IOW, anyone can vote for those that they think are deserving, without damaging the prospects for those that they believe are best.

 

[pogre]

I wouldn't be so quick to count out pkitty.

I didn't - at least I don't think I did - that's who I meant when I said PC (Pirate Cat). BTW - I did not see your hat in the ring, but I would assume you would be another heavy hitter!

It is not hopeless.

Easy for you to say

But, you are right of course - I just think it is a very steep uphill climb.