[ENnies] Three questions for everyone

[Mark CMG]

who in this community is a professional publisher?

The loose interpretation that has been used for the ENnies is anyone who publishes materials that are eligible for the ENnies. Obviously there are very few who actually make a full-time living in the field, but the designation has not been held so narrowly.

 

[The Sigil]

1E
2A
3B

Voting for "All new blood," to me, is simply what I see as a "fair distribution of goodies." After all, let's face it, the Ennies judges get SCADS of freebies. I just think it would be nice to "spread the wealth around" a little. Give different people a shot to expand their collection each year, rather than having the same people piling up huge stashes of gaming material for free (I know some of the judges pass theirs on, but still, there is a considerable amount of "free stuff" and everyone should get a turn at it).

No professional reviewers for the same reason as above. Professional reviewers already get freebies. Give the "average fan" a chance to get showered with freebies once in his life. And I say this as a publisher who will be doing the showering, not as a fan hoping to receive it.

3B - make it OGL releases. This forces everyone to play by the same rules - WotC shouldn't be excluded from consideration based on its size or success, but rather because it forces everyone else to play by different rules. If you're going to judge products head-to-head, you really need to be sure everyone played by the same rules, IMO. Otherwise the playing field gets slanted towards WotC - not because they can spend more money spent in R&D, but because they can change the rules on the other guys (and they *have* changed the rules by changing the d20 STL several times). This also explains the exclusion of those with special licenses - they are getting to play by different rules, too.

My 2 coppers.

--The Sigil

 

[Teflon Billy]

1F
2C
3E

 

[Maerdwyn]

IMO:

1F - Sine the judges are chosen by a vote of the community, we can as a community can easily change the judges from year to year if we are unhappy with the results
2C - A mix of reviewers and "regular" community members is A Good Thing
3E - It's not a real win unless one beats out everyone.

 

[Eridanis]

1F
2C
3E

Ditto. Unfettered competition is a good thing.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

1F
2C
3E

Same here.

1F - To do otherwise would erode the communtiy by effectively penalizing people and making them feel like outsiders. The internet is a transitory, ephemeral place as it is; to further discourage members who have been here a while fromm participating would sever the sense of continuity that makes this a community. As we've seen, new blood will be infused on its own.

2C - Again, this helps create a sense of community and an air of legitimacy.

3E - Limiting who can and cannot enter based on arbitrary reasons hurts the legitimacy of the awards.

 

[reiella]

Just a little bit of Meowth insanity, voted the 1F,2C,3E. For pretty much the reasons stated here, and in the long long threads talking about these similiar issues from last year (although I believe 3F got the most attention).

Meowth Meowth says Meowth.

 

[KB9JMQ]

Same here.

1F - To do otherwise would erode the communtiy by effectively penalizing people and making them feel like outsiders. The internet is a transitory, ephemeral place as it is; to further discourage members who have been here a while fromm participating would sever the sense of continuity that makes this a community. As we've seen, new blood will be infused on its own.

2C - Again, this helps create a sense of community and an air of legitimacy.

3E - Limiting who can and cannot enter based on arbitrary reasons hurts the legitimacy of the awards.

Ditto for Me

 

[EarthsShadow]

my only issue with 1F is that, unless one of the previous judges decides to announce he or she is not going to be a judge, the very likelihood of them being a judge the next year is heavily favored in his or her direction. I know that if certain people had not announced their decision not to be a judge, then we all wouldn't have the opportunity to even vote for who we want as a judge this year (but I may be mistaken on this).

Another factor is that the more books are released, the more categories we all could see and the more judges we could have, expanding it maybe one or two each year, but also have a limit of 5 to 7 judges or something like that.

Still, in the end, like in my D&D games, I do let the chips fall where they may and if the same people are voted in to be a judge the next year, then so be it and congratulations again.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...I know that if certain people had not announced their decision not to be a judge, then we all wouldn't have the opportunity to even vote for who we want as a judge this year (but I may be mistaken on this)...

How do you mean?

I think this is 100% wrong. There was always going to be a vote, whether Eric Noah was judging or not.

People have some funny ideas about what was "decided" last year.