ICE and the ENnies

[Raven Crowking]

It does seem that some films do actually win more then one category.

Well, I might just have to start a lot of threads calling the Academy out on that, then.

 

[Crothian]

Didn't he just say he ignored all the judges and almost never talked to anybody? How does that reconcile with "top voice" exactly?

Unbeknowst to us at the time, Diaglo had all but me of the Judges on his ignore list. It actually didn't create any problems that I saw but it is something that they have to be aware of and make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

[diaglo]

Didn't he just say he ignored all the judges and almost never talked to anybody? How does that reconcile with "top voice" exactly?

not all of the judges.

we voted. that's how voting works. 5 judges. odd number so ties can be broken. the system worked.

edit: btw, i feel insulted when you say i am just a judge. i am foremost a fan. i am probably the biggest fanboi you will ever meet when it comes to rpgs.

 

[eyebeams]

not all of the judges.

we voted. that's how voting works. 5 judges. odd number so ties can be broken. the system worked.

I think Shackled City's double selection was a mistake, so I respectfully beg to differ. In any event, it wasn't a debate, then. If it's the voting system working then . . . well, that's my point.

 

[diaglo]

I think Shackled City's double selection was a mistake, so I respectfully beg to differ. In any event, it wasn't a debate, then. If it's the voting system working then . . . well, that's my point.

i too respectfully differed. it was debated.
i was on the losing end.
the system worked.

btw, i'm having to log off and on to read most of this thread.

 

[JoeGKushner]

It does seem that some films do actually win more then one category.

For the record I don't think I was the person to first suggest moving Shackled City. But I did agree with it.

I suspect I was the first person to suggested putting the Shackled City in multiple categories.

Some can sit and say despite the size, it's essentially only an adventure. I disagree with them. With dozens of NPCs, locals, the city itself, several areas around the city, and unique rules for this sub-setting, I had no problem requesting that we put it in the campaign category as well.

Not everyone agrees with that. I can see why. The primary purpose of the book isn't to act as a setting. That doesn't mean that the book can't function as one. I have friends for example, who haven't used the Shackled City adventure path, but have used the guilds, have used the nobles, have used the areas around Cauldron for their own purposes. That to me showcases the versitility of the book and shows that to me at least, it was a good call.

 

[Crothian]

I think Shackled City's double selection was a mistake, so I respectfully beg to differ. In any event, it wasn't a debate, then. If it's the voting system working then . . . well, that's my point.

No, we did talk about it like we talk about everything. Some said we need to move the book. Someone else said why. The original person listed their reasons. We for the most part had no issues with it and that was that. It's very informal discussions.

 

[Umbran]

I think Shackled City's double selection was a mistake, so I respectfully beg to differ.

Well, there's something important to ask here...

Failure to match the judgement of a particular person means the system means the system doesn't work? The whole point of having multiple judges and public voting it so make sure the awards more closely match the will of the masses, not the will of specific individuals.

So, rather than declare the system a failure due to not agreeing with you, perhaps you should consider the possibility that your personal will (or the will of any smallish sub-group of the community) should not be the deciding factor.

 

[Pramas]

So true. That Robin Laws is just *full* of crap.

For every Robin Laws there are at least 20 chuckleheads.

The thing about the Origins Awards is that their story is complicated and no one likes complicated stories. They want nice easy answers instead. What happened with GAMA and by extension the OAs a couple of years ago is not easy to explain and the trouble it would take to do so would be wasted. The average gamer doesn't care about GAMA's politics. Hell, the average industry person doesn't either.

I'd say there are two important lessons to be learned from the Origins Awards:

1) Good intentions are not enough. Many, many people with the best of intentions have been involved in the Origins Awards. Charles Ryan and Nicole Lindroos, good and decent people both, spent many years trying to make the Origins Awards better to this day they are vilified in some quarters for their efforts.

2) Just because no one has messed with you doesn't mean they won't. The Ennies to date have been great and they have avoided many of the things that harmed the OAs. This does not make them immune to being messed with.

 

[eyebeams]

Well, there's something important to ask here...

Failure to match the judgement of a particular person means the system means the system doesn't work? The whole point of having multiple judges and public voting it so make sure the awards more closely match the will of the masses, not the will of specific individuals.

You seem to be mistaking my one-off opinion about Shackled City with the point I'm making, which is:

1) The ENnies aren't a fan award by reasonably strict definitions of the term. They're a publisher award.

2) That even though there's a good reason for the systemic biases in the awards, they still exist.

Whether "the system" agrees with me isn't the point. Then again, with Shackled City, the system didn't even agree with itself -- It couldn't even follow its own categories. When it's necessary to circumvent a system's guidelines to get a desired result, the system has a problem. People believing it's wonderful has about as much influence over the validity of this observation as really, really wanting 2+2=5.

Aside from that, there's the fact that companies submit their products in good faith. Tim Dugger obviously feels ill-used because he submitted a product for a category in good faith only to have it lose to a product that was only competing with his because the judges bent the rules.

If this had happened in the OAs, then it would actually have been democratic, since the general public votes on noms. And note that this is in an awards ceremony that is not exactly held up as a shining example. To actually behave in a less accounatble fashion than the OAs . . . that's a certain *kind* of impressive, I guess.

But it wasn't. It was a bunch of guys volunteering for a d20 publisher's promotional tool who made the decision, with at least one of them being an on-again, off again writer for that system, and some of the rest being the same guys -- in some cases for several years running. That doesn't look like any kind of dynamic, fan-informed process. It may not *be* lousy, but it doesn't look all populist, either.