For some reason I can't post under my regular screen name so I'm posting my thoughts under this one.
There have been many well thought out ideas and proposals on this thread. Something I certainly agree upon is the need for a mission statement for the ENnies. The awards need a foundation upon which everything else is structured and a mission statement will help achieve that. Having Dextra assume management of the awards is also a very positive step and would serve to help get more publishers involved because of the way she runs her business.
I also think the categories need to be rigidly defined and clarified. This allows publishers to determine exactly which of their products is best suited for each category and it lets voters understand exactly what each category means. For example, when the category of
Best Setting Supplement was announced, I took it to mean that supplements
specifically designed for established campaign settings such as Forgotten Realms, Oathbound, Scarred Lands, Warcraft, etc. would be found here. I was surprised when the nominees included Corwyl and Crooks! (both excellent books) only because I hadn't considered them to be campaign setting supplements, rather I felt they were campaign resources designed to enrich the game overall.
(*Note, I am not saying these products did not deserve to be nominated and it should not be taken that way. I am only using this as an example.) Had a definition of qualification been posted for each category, it would have made it easier to understand what did or did not fall under that category and even why. A rigid definition of categories will also serve to help the judges in determining exactly where a product fits. Using my earlier example, defining
Best Setting Supplement as
any product that is specifically designed to be used in an established and named campaign world would qualify Crooks! but not Corwyl and Thieves Quarter. However, if a category of
Best d20 Resource were created and defined as
any product that is generic in nature and may be used in any established name campaign setting without substantial changes, those books would qualify as would Redhurst and possibly Omlevex (rather than Best Campaign Setting). Had definitions of the categories been established, there may have been more entries. For example, had a category for Campaign Resource existed, Bastion would have likely entered three additional products that were not included with our present entries.
I think there should also be a concerted effort to get more publishers to participate in the awards. The ENnies are still young and as such, are still struggling for acceptance among the publishers. While great strides have been made, I also think that unless publishers such as Wizards of the Coast get involved, there will still be the lingering spectre of legitimacy hanging about. After all, if some of the big names don't want to play, then how can anyone truly say that product X was the best of category Y? We need the ability to include everyone so there is no dispute as to who is the current king of the hill for that category.
As for requiring a submission fee on top of sending product, simply put, that won't fly. Why would a publisher send 6 or more copies of each product for consideration (at a cost of at least $10 per book to the publisher) and turn around and pay more for the privilege of being considered for an award? The more requirements and work that publisher must do, the less likely he will be to want to be involved. The ENnies are great, but I just don't see publishers lining up to subsidize them by paying a fee for each book considered. There has to be a different way.
I also agree that the voting is far from perfect, but there really isn't a full-proof solution to this issue. As long as voters must make choices, even if it's to write in their vote, there exists the possibility of charges of unfairness or favoritism. Perhaps a key to preventing this is by publicly showing exactly how voting is determined and scored. Transparency is always a good thing.
Lastly, an unpopular point that has been brought up in the past but still remains an issue to publishers is the presence of a panel of judges to determine the nominees. Certain companies feel they will never get a fair consideration as long as judges with clear biases against those companies are involved in the selections. Therefore, they will not enter the awards. This goes along with some of the criticisms that Monte Cook brought to light on his site's forums. Why should a publisher feel obligated to enter products for the ENnies, when he is publicly criticized on a regular basis by the EN community or on EN reviews? Again, the ENnies need to work towards getting everyone involved and not just their favorite sons and daughters, so to speak.
While I readily admit that the judges do a remarkable job in the short time they have to work with, it is a thankless and very demanding job. Objectivity is a must. Judges must be willing to set aside all preconceptions and biases and be willing to read the entire product regardless whether they initially like it or not. If you read the first couple of chapters, decide you don't like it and move on to the next submission, who's to say that you aren't missing out on something great later in the book? An example of this is Guardians of Order's Slayers d20. The first part of the book is geared towards the anime series. It's only when you get to the latter half of the book do you discover the magic rules and the rules for psychological warfare, which are some of the book's greatest strengths. If a judge were reading this book and decided he didn't like the episode summary in the beginning and put the book down without finishing it, its chances for nomination just went down the drain, so to speak. The reason I bring this up is because such a comment was made by a judge about not finishing a book he didn't like. There must be total commitment or again, the legitimacy of the awards fall into question.
Overall, I feel the ENnies have made great improvements and hope they will continue to do just that. Great strides were made this year and I am confident that greater strides lie on the road ahead with the proper direction and management. I look forward to seeing what comes of these discussions.
