Ennies Judge Election Closed - Winners Inside

[Umbran]

I'd rather, if you plan to be devil's advocate, that you do not attribute such assumptions to me as you are doing.

I must go to work, so for the moment I'll answer only to this one point for the moment -

I was not attributing the assumption to you. No offense intended, but for our purposes in discussion, your individual opinion of the judges' qualifications isn't particularly relevant. The Academy voted, and those votes show who they think is more qualified. You suggest we tell them they cannot have (some of) those people.

And thanks to Morrus for bringing up the "Academy" word. It works as nice shorthand.

I'll address the rest later....

 

[Mark]

I must go to work, so for the moment I'll answer only to this one point for the moment -

I was not attributing the assumption to you. No offense intended, but for our purposes in discussion, your individual opinion of the judges' qualifications isn't particularly relevant. The Academy voted, and those votes show who they think is more qualified. You suggest we tell them they cannot have (some of) those people.

And thanks to Morrus for bringing up the "Academy" word. It works as nice shorthand.

I'll address the rest later....

Hmmm... I had to offer my opinion since you had offered yours, didn't I?

Nevertheless, I've never really enjoyed arguing, and less so when it is simply for the sake of arguing, which it must be if you're only playing devil's advocate and therefore must either agree with my position or hold no opinion of your own. I'll leave the last word for you and abandon this thread because I am not happy with the idea that it's become more about arguing against suggestions than offering either alternatives or new ones that deal with other areas where there can be a potential gain or benefit by progress.

I do leave you with a word of caution, though. If you are simply playing devil's advocate, let me ask you to cease, and move toward simply expressing your own actual view whether it be along the same lines (but merely a variation) or if it is a closer agreement with me. I think that you may find that it is a more helpful way to achieve a useful end than being contrary for the sake of exercise.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

It struck me that Umbran's "Devil's Advocacy" was rather constructive, in my view. It didn't seem he was out of line at all.

 

[Mark]

Well crap on a stick, I should have known better than to say I would just be leaving. It never fails that when you say you're going to leave something to someone, another person entirely hops in and says something to draw you back, so here's my tired but necessary reply...

It struck me that Umbran's "Devil's Advocacy" was rather constructive, in my view. It didn't seem he was out of line at all.

Perhaps it is constructive, I did not say it was not. I said something that meant that if he doesn't agree with the posistion he is supporting, it isn't helping his own interests. I said something that meant that being contrary for the sake off being contrary is less constructive than advancing suggestions that work toward something positive. I did not say that playing devil's advocate was not constructive.

I did not say that he was "out of line." Implying that is what I meant, however, is out of line especially under the circumstances (my having said that I would not be returning to the thread.) It puts words in my mouth, or suggests that I meant something that I clearly did not say.

ColH - Please retract and allow my words to stand for themselves rather than suggest a meaning that can only be drawn by not taking my words at face value.

 

[Morrus]

It is also more likely to me that if someone has chosen an incumbant they have done so because they were familiar, not necessarily because they wish to have a full membership committee of incumbants.

I notice that you've used this argument for the judging process, but [appear] to feel that it doesn't apply to the actual voting process for the winners.

Familiarity is an issue, I agree - which is why WotC won so many award last year, and which is why that issue is on the table here.

I'm not 100% sure how I feel about it - and I'll pretty much be leaving such decisions to the judges, as usual - but I do feel that if familiarity gives incumbent judges an unfair advantage, why does it not also give WOtC an advantage in the actual voting process?

If you are simply playing devil's advocate, let me ask you to cease, and move toward simply expressing your own actual view whether it be along the same lines (but merely a variation) or if it is a closer agreement with me. I think that you may find that it is a more helpful way to achieve a useful end than being contrary for the sake of exercise.

Actually, I feel that playing Devil's Advocate is an excellent way of helping to ensure that both sides of the coin are looked at. I'd certainly encourage it in this thread, as long as it's done politely and constructively (as Umbran has done).

 

[Mark]

Actually, I feel that playing Devil's Advocate is an excellent way of helping to ensure that both sides of the coin are looked at. I'd certainly encourage it in this thread, as long as it's done politely and constructively (as Umbran has done).

Well crap on a stick,...

Perhaps it is constructive, I did not say it was not. I said something that meant that if he doesn't agree with the position he is supporting, it isn't helping his own interests. I said something that meant that being contrary for the sake off being contrary is less constructive than advancing suggestions that work toward something positive. I did not say that playing devil's advocate was not constructive.

Please, if either you or the Colonel feel that it is worthwhile to continue the debate, take a side whtether you feel it is valid or not and have at it.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...We asked the community who it was they wanted as judges, and these are the people chosen. If the community at large felt that they didn't want incumbents, they wouldn't have voted for them...

Umbran pretty much summed up my position right there.

I guess my position on the matter has been advocated

Muahahhahhahaaa!!!!

*thunder*

 

[Mark]

I notice that you've used this argument for the judging process, but [appear] to feel that it doesn't apply to the actual voting process for the winners.

Familiarity is an issue, I agree - which is why WotC won so many award last year, and which is why that issue is on the table here.

Not having the numbers to those votes I cannot use the same logic to suggest a policy other than that WotC should be allowed in. If the numbers suggest that the "Academy" only desired that 40% of WotC products should win, do you feel that a policy should be implemented to achieve that result? Please, argue both sides of this as that would be constructive.

*edit* At no point have I said that incumbants should not be allowed to win at all by virtue of being incumbant, I have suggested that their be an effort to ensure a percentage of new blodd and that the percentage might best be ascribed in accordance with some factor such as what the voting might be suggesting. *end edit*

Umbran pretty much summed up my position right there.

I guess my position on the matter has been advocated

Muahahhahhahaaa!!!!

*thunder*

Then by all means choose the contrary position and make a case for it. It appears to be not only trendy but what what others would like to be reading...especially as soon as you have tired of such a display.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I do leave you with a word of caution, though. If you are simply playing devil's advocate, let me ask you to cease, and move toward simply expressing your own actual view whether it be along the same lines (but merely a variation) or if it is a closer agreement with me. I think that you may find that it is a more helpful way to achieve a useful end than being contrary for the sake of exercise.

Here is what I was replying to. If one posts they are leaving a thread, and then posts a word of caution about how the poster with whom they've been debating has been discussing the matter, that seems to strongly imply that one is disgruntled with the other poster's discussion. I was simply saying that I didn't see anything wrong with Umbran's discussion, such that he needed any kind of a warning. If you took it that I was putting words into your mouth, I apologize. I wasn't. I was responding to the tenor of your post.

I agree with Teflon Billy's assertion.

 

[Mark]

Here is what I was replying to. If one posts they are leaving a thread, and then posts a word of caution about how the poster with whom they've been debating has been discussing the matter, that seems to strongly imply that one is disgruntled with the other poster's discussion. I was simply saying that I didn't see anything wrong with Umbran's discussion, such that he needed any kind of a warning. If you took it that I was putting words into your mouth, I apologize. I wasn't. I was responding to the tenor of your post.

I agree with Teflon Billy's assertion.

Col, one more time since you do not yet get it, read what I wrote, know that I meant what I said and not what you are implying that I meant. The only thing that has angered me in the slightest thus far is the penchant to attribute meaning other than what is actually said.