ENnies discussion thread

[fusangite]

While AV is great at selecting the least objectable candidate within a field, having an unobjectable candidate is not a worthwhile measure for any award.

In general, I'd prefer if we could turn away from the discourse of the political viability of these voting systems. I don't believe that these forums are the appropriate place for such discussions.

Sorry if I have failed to do this but this has been my intention all along. This is why Umbran and I have continued to stress the need to tailor the system to the situation. FWIW, I don't support IRV for the election of members of parliament or legislatures.

The whole point of these various voting methods is to make the best strategic voting the same as honest voting, so there's no incentive to dishonestly rank products.

Thanks for distilling my entire agenda into one sentence. Much appreciated.

Yeah, the system was borrowed wholesale from a company whose job it is to do market research. They have hundreds of thousands of pounds resting on accurate data survey results, and they use data cleansing procedures. If it's good enough for them and their large investments, it's good enough for me.

And I would support it if this were a poll rather than a competitive election. However, in elections, people behave differently than they do when responding to random market research telephone polls. The two situations are sufficiently dissimilar that one cannot import methods wholesale from one into another.

McDonald's, for instance, doesn't try to "win" Burger King's market research polls nor does Burger King try to "win" McDonald's market research polls. In the ENNies, different publishers actually are trying to win, in part because, unlike market research polling, there is something to win. Furthermore, nobody has ever observed strategic voting in operation in polling; if this were to start to become a problem, market research companies would, rest assured, change their methodologies. This is because when someone answers a poll question, they can be sure that their response will not determine the outcome of the election. With the ENNies, people can be 100% sure that their vote will (even though some of mine didn't last year, evidently).

Now, if you wanted to do market research about popular RPG products and give out awards on that basis, last year's voting procedure would work perfectly well provided it was not conducted online in the presence of the actual campaign. You could just phone randomly selected gamers all over the world and ask them a series of questions. Most of the gamers you would contact would be unaware of the ENNies and unaware of any of the campaigns by third party publishers to win awards.

The problem here is an increasingly common one in this day and age: the confusion of democracy with demography. And we again return to the question of what is the voting system being used for.

Finally, I would hazard a guess that the ENNies are likely the only remotely legitimate awards that have been handed out after the judging community has undergone "data cleansing."

No, I thought it would be a cool idea to allow an ENnies discussion thread; to even host it myself on my website and let everyone hash out which voting system seemed best. Evil, aren't I?

Yes. And I apologize for sounding quite so irate this morning. I appreciate you consulting with the voters about the procedure. I think Umbran was really onto something when he suggested that more than looking at what voting/ranking/polling systems are used for politics, marketing or in other fields, we should direct our attention to the voting systems that other annual awards use.

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

In order to frame a worthwile debate of voting systems that goes beyond pure academics, I believe we need to determine exactly what the aim of an Ennies vote is. I would argue that we should be awarding the ENNIES to the best product within the field of choices for a particular award, and indvidual votes should be reflective of this aim. If my assumption is correct, AV doesn't pass muster because with AV there is no distinction between a vote of approval and a vote for the best candidate within a field. Without a measure of quality within the voting system which is used, whether through rankings, ratings, or simply a singular vote for the best candidate, I'd argue that voters would in no way be making worthwhile selections. While AV is great at selecting the least objectable candidate within a field, having an unobjectable candidate is not a worthwhile measure for any award.

In general, I'd prefer if we could turn away from the discourse of the political viability of these voting systems. I don't believe that these forums are the appropriate place for such discussions.

Thank you, I couldn't agree more. In fact your comment makes me realize that an "Award" is not an "Election". In an "Election" peole are asked to make a choice to find a result that best "serves" everyone.

For a non-political example: A group of people decide to go on vacation together. A compromize vacation (were everyone has an ok time), would "serve" everyone better than a vacation were some have a great time and others have a terrible time.

Awards are about past results, not future service. A compromize canidate is not likely to be "The Best" artwork.

In my opinion AV (or something like it) should be used to choose ENnies Judges, however IRV would be the better choice to determin "The Best" product.

 

[Campbell]

Sorry if I have failed to do this but this has been my intention all along. This is why Umbran and I have continued to stress the need to tailor the system to the situation. FWIW, I don't support IRV for the election of members of parliament or legislatures.

I apologize if the language I used previously seemed to indicate that your posts had been anything other than level headed. Your analysis was of immense help to me. I just thought that this discussion had lost some of its original focus.

 

[pensiv]

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

Something should be said for those of us that have taken the time to throw in our hats despite the seeming odds.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Something should be said for those of us that have taken the time to throw in our hats despite the seeming odds.

Everyone who throws their hat in the ring deserves to be recognised. I didn't think I had a snowballs chance in hell of making it when I decided to run last year, and I ended up on the panel. It can happen. Best of luck to everyone who stepped up to the plate this year.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Something should be said for those of us that have taken the time to throw in our hats despite the seeming odds.

Well, in terms of eligibility, maybe there should be a two year on, one year off? That way people who havent' judged before can get in?

I can't say that I'm a sure thing or anythign myself as I've run several times and last year was my first time getting in.

Rough competition this year!

 

[Macbeth]

Yeah, I wanted to throw my hat into the ring, but I know I don't have much of a chance. I decided to run anyway since I probably won't be able to run next year, since I'll be an author, but I really don't hold out much of a chance of getting in.

 

[BSF]

I volunteered for two reasons.

One is that it might be fun work. I really had to carefully consider if I would have time, but I am pretty sure I can work it into my schedule. So if I can meet the time requirements and I am willing to do it, why not?

Two is that there needs to be options. I don't consider that my odds are high. Really that doesn't matter to me. We have some great potential judges and I would be happy to see any of them win. But if all of us decided that the pool was good enough, and left it with a small pool, then it is quite likely that the ENnies will be viewed as too small a group and too biased to present real value to the non-EN World gaming community.

I want the ENnies to be successful. One way to do that is to be sure every voter has the option of deviating from the favorites with another serious potential judge. If I am chosen, that would be neat. If I am not, then it means that we have other judges that better represent the views of the gamers that voted for them.

 

[Macbeth]

I think BSF is very accurate as to some of the reasons for running (I share the same reasons). In addition, I think that it's important for people to run who think they have a different point of view. Most of the judges are, at leaste from my perspective, older. I like running just to give people a reasonable younger canidate. I think that I can offer some special insight, since I have a younger (more naive?) point of view, which, at this point, does reflect a good portion of the d20 market.

Anyways, if all of us with no chance didn't run, it would just be 6 or 7 people running, which wouldn't leave many options (as BSF said). I can give up a little pride for the good of giving people options. I'm like the Ralph Nader of the ENnies.

 

[zenld]

Good Luck to all those running. May the best persons win.

As to term limits, I must quote:

"We have term limits. They are called elections."

zen