ENnies V - and beyond...

[Grazzt]

I'm at a loss myself as to why things have to "change". Let the ENnies be what they are. They'll be important to some, laughed at by some, and others will charge corruption no matter what--sort of like the Academy Awards (TM), Tonys, Emmys and Grammys.

and don't forget the Cable Ace Awards

 

[trancejeremy]

RPG.net has a large non-gamer population on it's message boards. I think that would likely pollute the voting, since they would simply vote for people they know.

As for the admins of RPG.net, well, I don't think they would be especially impartial, either. Shannon, yeah, but I'm not sure about the other two.

 

[Lela]

A couple basic thoughts on getting the word out about the ENies,

• Posters. These could be set out to FLGS to be displayed and sold. While most consumers wouldn't purchase one, some would and may display it where their friends, likely also interested in the RPG world, would see it. But purchasing isn't it's main point. Simply having the word ENies floating around people's heads gives it more power when they see the logo on some hardcover they run across. Posters would be a traditional means of that happening.
• Magazine articles. I assume this already happens in most cases but I don't happen to be rolling in the money necisary to get a subscription to Dragon or Dungeon. A simple spread, detailing a few of the winning products is always a good idea.

Okay, that turned out more basic than I thought it would. Perhaps after I get some sleep. . .

Well, I'd presume that this plan to "give" 3 of 5 judging posts to RPG.net would take form in one of two ways:

<Snip!>

You know, not to be eletist or anything, but they are the ENies. I wholly support RPG.net putting together the RPG.net awards or something but, really, they just don't have a place in this competition.

I think the position stemed from the premise that we cater to d20 products heavily. I can't argue with that. Instead, I'll mention that ENWorld was designed around the posterchild for d20, Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition. As such, we attract those who play that game and other games with d20 mechanics. It really was expected from the beginning (and, in fact, hoped for). It just seems natural for us to focus on what the EN community is based on.

If the fans the awards represent are biased towards d20, then, really, I'd expect the awards to themselves lean in that direction.

 

[Umbran]

I'm at a loss myself as to why things have to "change".

Here, take my time machine, and ask our tree-dwelling ancestors why things ought to change. Change is the only constant in the Universe, Dinkeldog.

Less quippishly - if nothing else, if what we are told is correct, the economics of the awards have to change, because they currently hemorhage money. If we have to change the economics, then perhaps other things have to change, too - if the best way to make them viable is to charge a fee for entries, then we need to make sure they are worth the fee, and so on...

 

[Krug]

RPG.net has a large non-gamer population on it's message boards. I think that would likely pollute the voting, since they would simply vote for people they know.

As for the admins of RPG.net, well, I don't think they would be especially impartial, either. Shannon, yeah, but I'm not sure about the other two.

I don't see the need for external judges. These are the ENnies; why can't they come from the EN World community?

 

[Crothian]

I don't see the need for external judges. These are the ENnies; why can't they come from the EN World community?

Could not agree more.

 

[Chaos Drake]

Also against external judges. We're also going for an ENnie member voting only right?

 

[Ed Cha]

Another reason people want the 1-5 rating is to limit the effect of people voting bad for products not casue they don't like them but becasue they want product X to win. So, they might vote 4 products 1's and one a 10. Limiting the numbers make that not mess things up as bad. Also, if we define the numbers instead of just listing them it will be easier to define 5 numbers then 10. These are just ideas, and one should take into consideration that the poster of an idea is not always a supporter of the idea.

Someone posted earlier that they vote, or at least think people vote, 8-10 for the products they like and 1-3 for products they don't like.

I voted and I don't recall giving anything less than a 5. I doubt any product nominated for an ENnie deserves a score below 5, even if you didn't personally find it your taste. The fact that there is organized voting where people are deliberately giving 1-3's is very bothersome to me.

In order to limit the influence of irresponsible voters like that, I think the 1-5 rating system would help.

I know last year there was a statement about how such voting would be thrown out, but I don't know if it was enforced this year as I did not see it mentioned anywhere.

 

[Morrus]

I know last year there was a statement about how such voting would be thrown out, but I don't know if it was enforced this year as I did not see it mentioned anywhere.

The votes are normalised. Which I don't understand, but a statistician friend of mine who is responsible for it being that way assures me that it is a good thing.

 

[Umbran]

In order to limit the influence of irresponsible voters like that, I think the 1-5 rating system would help.

I don't see how it would.

Let us take for granted that under the current 1-10 voting range, some folks are (or may) bollix up things by voting "1" against a product. Our averages are thereby affected.

Now, change it to a 1-5 scale. This is pretty darned close to simply dividing the previous results by 2. If the voting pattern remains the same, the relative rankings remain the same, and there's no change from the 1-10 scale in effective results.

I am oversimplifying, leaving out normalizing the votes and the like. But the principle is the same - shrinking the range does not lessen the ability to vote against a product. The size of the range in a ranking system only changes how many decimal places out you have to go in order to determine the winner.

In order to eliminate the effect, you have to either change teh way people vote (eliminate voting against products in the population) or eliminate the ability to vote against a product at all.

Depending on the normalization scheme being used, the effect of all this can be minimized, but not eliminated entirely. And it may be a bugaboo - Have we actually confirmed that a significant number of folks are min/max voting? Do we have reason to suspect that they might do so in the future?