ENnies discussion thread

[philreed]

"I didn't have A product last year... I had 13,000 products last year!"

I think you qualify.

Hey, we're gamers. I thought gaming the system was all part of the fun?

 

[fusangite]

Uhm... maybe I'm misunderstanding you, or perhaps you used the wrong terms there... but I thought the latter two systems (single non-transferable vote and multi-member plurality) refer to situations where you need to elect multiple winners (e.g. a district with multiple seats to be filled).

My personal favorites are approval voting (i.e. checkboxes!) and instant runoff voting (aka single transferable voting).

As I mentioned on the previous page, we had a good discussion last year of why the current voting systems had serious problems, and possible alternatives. Check this thread: ENnies V - and beyond...

Oh... I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about how the judges were selected. I hadn't even got the the question of how the judges ranked things.

Also, instant runoff voting (which I would agree is the best for choosing a single victor in a large field) is AV (Alternative Vote). STV chooses multiple winners in a large field. AV is used for the Australian parliament; STV, for the Irish.

Also, approval voting is not a system but a class of system and I cannot tell how you're proposing to run it simply by noting the presence of checkboxes. Do you mean it's a multi-member plurality system?

I read all six pages of the thread you recommended and what I saw was rather wooly discussions of voting systems. I don't think people "got" why it is problematic to give people multiple votes that correspond to points.

So, just to briefly summarize, here is what is wrong with Borda systems and their ilk that do this:

Let's say we have a competition in a fictional category called Game History amongst the five following books:
The Gygax Memoirs: D&D's Early Years
The Edwards Mission: Bringing Postmodernist Sociology to Gamers
Monte Cook: Black Sheep or Just Slate Grey?
Platform Sandals Under the Battle Mat: Women's Gaming 1974-84
What's New to Valar: Failed Attempts to Sexualize Gaming

Now let's suppose that the Gygax Memoirs and the Edwards Mission are the clear frontrunners; although ideologically opposed, they are both well-written and interesting books. (This is just a fictional example after all.) On the other hand, the Platform Sandals text is wildly inaccurate (after all, what female gamer ever wore shoes like that?) and terribly written. We therefore know it is the worst possible candidate.

Those supporting the Gygax Memoirs do not have an incentive to give any score other than the worst possible one to the Edwards Mission. Their priority is to prevent the Gygax Memoirs from being overtaken by its closest competitor. Similarly, the Edwards Mission supporters will also be mainly concerned with preventing their text from being overtaken by its closest competitor, the Gygax Mission, and will therefore give it the lowest possible rating.

So, if everyone who wants the Gygax Memoirs to win gives the Edwards Mission 1 out of 5 and everyone who wants the Edwards Mission to win gives the Gygax Memoirs 1 out of 5 and the two sides are fairly equally matched, both products will end up with scores of roughly 3 out of 5. However, if a small group of shoe fetishists vote for the Platform Sandals text and give it 4 out of 5, while others don't know enough to vote on the publication at all, it will beat the obvious two front-runners.

While this problem can be solved by everyone giving all products except their favourite a 1 ranking and their favourite a 5 ranking, in a system with Borda ranking, even this will not be possible. The Platform Sandals will undoubtedly win under a Borda system because as the lowest-quality product, it will naturally attract all the second choice vote because it is not a threat. It is merely probable that Platform Sandals will win under a scoring system like last year's because a product that appears to have only a small cadre of supporters and therefore appears not to be a threat will only attract positive ratings whereas a product with a large group of supporters that appears, therefore, to be a threat, will attract negative ratings.

For this reason, I recommend AV as our system for voting in the categories. If you're backing a front-runner, your favourite product is not hurt by you making the next best product your second choice because your vote will not transfer unless your product is eliminated in one of the rounds of counting.

 

[talien]

I am aware that our old system was horribly insecure (and probably hacked) and I will be writing a custom version from scratch. Beyond this there is little that can be done. IP's are too easily spoofed, as are emails and DNS's. If people are hell bent on cheating they will do so. While it will be more difficult to cheat than in years past it is not possible to make it impossible to cheat on any system that is Internet based.

*blink*

Come again? Do you mean "hacked" as in "the system is a hack job" or do you mean "someone cheated and hacked the system and won ENnies as a result?"

One is a turn of phrase...the other seems quite a bit more serious.

 

[Umbran]

Tha'ts fine. How would you success that it happens though? Do we limit the number of times people can be judges? Do we have sperate voting, one for previous judges and one for non previous judges, and take the top three from one and the top 2 from another?

I'd say the best way would be to treat folks as if they were mature and thoughtful - talk about the various merits of having long-term judges and new-blood judges, and let the results come out in voting.

 

[Piratecat]

For this reason, I recommend AV as our system for voting in the categories. If you're backing a front-runner, your favourite product is not hurt by you making the next best product your second choice because your vote will not transfer unless your product is eliminated in one of the rounds of counting.

Great description of the Borda system. Can you do a similar explanation of how the AV system works?

 

[alsih2o]

Great description of the Borda system. Can you do a similar explanation of how the AV system works?

Step 1. Win the lottery

Step 2. Hire Fusangite.

Step 3. ???

Step 4. Profit.

I am gonna make up shirts that say "Got Fusangite?"

He has such a broad knowledge and a great way of explaining things.

-Alsih2o, proud member of the Fusangite posse.

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

In a nutshell, because I come to this site for all things d20 (and, to a lesser extent, OGL), not for other game systems which are incompatible with the D&D ruleset. Hence, a product from another system that wins an ENnie is not going to be relevant to me (even if it is a fantastic product in its own right).

Also, I feel that there are other awards out there (such as origins) which cover the wider range already. I'd like the ENnies to be uniquely d20/OGL.

Another reason that ENnies and Origins are not redundant is the voters. Origins is an "industry" award, ENnies is a "fan" award. Like the difference between the Nebula & Hugo awards in speculative fiction.

As for the question of "relevant winners" where do you draw the line?

Some people (and you are far from the only person who feels this way) only like "D20" and would like the awards to focus on that.
Some people prefer "fantasy" gaming, so any D20 Modern, or D20 Star Wars is not going to be relevant to them.
Some people don't like Horror, so any D20 Cthulhu, or D20 Ravenloft is not going to be relevant to them.
Some people don't use Mini's
Some people don't buy PDF's

And some people enjoy good writing, quality artwork, well thought out maps & graphs no matter what the source.

 

[Ranger REG]

It actually just got worse this year. There are now only two RPG categories in the Origins Awards, Best RPG and Best RPG Sourcebook. The Sourcebook category was already ludicrously huge and now it has had all the adventures dumped into it as well.

Wow, that sucks big time.

 

[DaveMage]

Another reason that ENnies and Origins are not redundant is the voters. Origins is an "industry" award, ENnies is a "fan" award. Like the difference between the Nebula & Hugo awards in speculative fiction.

As for the question of "relevant winners" where do you draw the line?

The pen & paper awards are also "fan" awards for all RPGs.

I would draw the line at "was this product primarily intended for use in a d20/OGL game".

I agree with you, of course, that what one person finds relevant is not going to be the same for others, but for me the ENnies nominees should fall into the parameters above.

However, having said that, I'm not exactly putting my money where my mouth is (i.e., funding the ENnies or providing technical support in any way), so those that do fund and provide technical support to the ENnies naturally get to choose the award's direction. I'm just a d20 and EN World fan who's sharing my desires.

 

[Michael Morris]

*blink*

Come again? Do you mean "hacked" as in "the system is a hack job" or do you mean "someone cheated and hacked the system and won ENnies as a result?"

One is a turn of phrase...the other seems quite a bit more serious.

The author of the original system used an UNSECURED admin panel. Being the master of security he is, he conveniently named the file to access it admin.php. Gaming Report put the results out one or two days early, and I have no reason not to believe that's how they learned the results early.

I don't think the results themselves where comprimised though.