Ennies Judge Election Closed - Winners Inside

[seasong]

If I may weigh in as a non-incumbent who, this year, has no chance of winning...

I say don't restrict the incumbents. Heck, I voted for some of 'em myself (along with me, of course). The reason they're getting votes is because everyone knows them... but I would argue that the reason everyone knows them ISN'T their incumbancy. They're long-term, very active members of the community.

I threw my hat in the ring because I plan to own () this contest next year... but in order to do that, I have to put myself in people's minds now, and then build up a reputation that matches my claims. A story hour maintained for a few months, a few sharp commentaries in the house rules... I need to be more present than this before I can really be a pillar of our community.

The current incumbents are pillars. But that's an inclusive kind of thing - anyone putting in the time and effort can become a pillar, and that's who I, personally, would want to represent me in the ENnies.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

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.

I'm not implying anything, Mark. I think I pretty clearly stated what I got out of reading your posts. I also think you're making a huge assumption by implying that I was simply sniping. Read my original post and know that I meant what I said and not what you are implying.

 

[Mark]

I'm not implying anything, Mark. I think I pretty clearly stated what I got out of reading your posts. I also think you're making a huge assumption by implying that I was simply sniping. Read my original post and know that I meant what I said and not what you are implying.

When you attribute something to someone and that someone tells you that they did not say it, mean it nor imply it, take them at their word and don't continue to suggest that they did.

If I may weigh in as a non-incumbent who, this year, has no chance of winning...

I say don't restrict the incumbents. Heck, I voted for some of 'em myself (along with me, of course). The reason they're getting votes is because everyone knows them... but I would argue that the reason everyone knows them ISN'T their incumbancy. They're long-term, very active members of the community.

I threw my hat in the ring because I plan to own () this contest next year... but in order to do that, I have to put myself in people's minds now, and then build up a reputation that matches my claims. A story hour maintained for a few months, a few sharp commentaries in the house rules... I need to be more present than this before I can really be a pillar of our community.

The current incumbents are pillars. But that's an inclusive kind of thing - anyone putting in the time and effort can become a pillar, and that's who I, personally, would want to represent me in the ENnies.

Well, see now I am convinced. Be prepared, though, since there are a hdful of people who feel it will be constructive to take the opposing view and debate it with you.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

When you attribute something to someone and that someone tells you that they did not say it, mean it nor imply it, take them at their word and don't continue to suggest that they did.

Ditto.

 

[Morrus]

OK, ths thread has veered off track.

The thread is not about the merits (or lack thereof) of the practice of taking a Devil's Advocate stance in a debate. As long as nobody's being offensive, their motives for posting are irrelevant (and they are the best person to judge what is in their own interest). Some people here don't have an "own interest" or an agenda, and are helpfully trying to present all dies of the argument - which I support. For the record, I have no "interest" in it going one way or t'other - I'm just trying to gather opinions and offering some (I hope objective) observations of my own.

Anyway, let's get back on track. We know how Mark feels - anyone else have any opinions?

My own opinion on the "incumbent" issue is that it doesn't matter too much. If people vote for the same people each year, then so be it - that's what they voted for. However, Mark is probably right when he suggests that in futire more measures could be taken to increase peoples' awareness of the different options available, so that they are not only voting out of familiarity.

On the WotC issue - I do support their entering. However, it should also be considered that they sell over 10 times what any D20 publisher can sell, purely due to marketing budget and not to product quality (that's not to say that the product's aren't good, necessarily, of course). Thus people are more likely to vote for WotC products (by a large factor, not just a small margin) simply by virtue of not having heard of the other products nominated.

I do feel that this is an issue - it does happen. What we need to address here are two things: 1) does it matter, and 2) if it does, how can it be resolved?

I like the idea of including a "Don't Know" option in the voting booth - that will certainly go some way toward solving that problem.

 

[Mark]

Retracted in view of MoRuss' last post.

Col_H (and others) - My apologies for allowing this to become something which serves no useful purpose.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I apologize to all concerned. I was just trying to be pithy and direct, not offensive.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

The main reason I didn't post about the incumbents issue before I did, was that I didn't know exactly what to say. I'm one of those "incumbents" who is vying to be a judge again, so I was reluctant to jump in - much of the early discussion about incumbents seemed to indicate some disgruntlement. I wanted to see how the voting public hashed it all out. Umbran's posts seemed to be the first that presented a position with which I agreed - but I felt that if I came in and spouted off about how I agreed, it would seem crassly self-serving. I wanted the discussion to continue, though, and tried to post as succinctly and neutrally as possible. However, I'll speak now as just a member. If any feel it is inappropriate of me to do so, please know that I am ready and willing to take my name out of contention rather than have the incumbents issue give the ENnies a black eye. The integrity of the awards is of paramount importance in this regard. But here are my opinions:

I don't like term limits. I don't like limiting the number of incumbents. I think people vote for whomever they feel is best qualified, and should not have their choices limited. I also think it is unfair to exclude anyone from participating if they choose to do so. This is a community, and if anyone is excluded, it lessens the community, especially if that exclusion is based on something that is not detrimental to the community. I also think it is important that the results not be viewable before someone has posted, because I do agree that this could skew the results.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...I don't like term limits. I don't like limiting the number of incumbents. I think people vote for whomever they feel is best qualified, and should not have their choices limited. I also think it is unfair to exclude anyone from participating if they choose to do so. This is a community, and if anyone is excluded, it lessens the community, especially if that exclusion is based on something that is not detrimental to the community...

Yep, you agree with my assertion allright

 

[seasong]

Anyway, let's get back on track. We know how Mark feels - anyone else have any opinions?

I think mine may have gotten lost in the middle of the devil's advocacy:

I say don't restrict the incumbents. Heck, I voted for some of 'em myself (along with me, of course). The reason they're getting votes is because everyone knows them... but I would argue that the reason everyone knows them ISN'T their incumbancy. They're long-term, very active members of the community.

That's my statement, and I stick by it .