ICE and the ENnies

[Wulf Ratbane]

"Promotional tool" implies motive.

Deleted by Admin. This thread doesn't need snarky insults.

 

[eyebeams]

Actually, it was a "hey, wouldn't it be cool if we did that?" It is not a promotional tool for EN Publishing or EN World, although I am sure that both benefit a little as a side-effect. "Promotional tool" implies motive.

"Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we did that?" *is* a motive. People don't come up with promotional campaigns in evil boardrooms. They usually think it would *be cool if they did* something. The nature of promotion is to find things that would be cool if one did them.

 

[kingpaul]

Plus, too many people know each other; I can see situations where *every* judge has to recuse themselves.

Could you point out a specific instance where all judges would have to recuse themselves?

 

[Morrus]

"Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we did that?" *is* a motive. People don't come up with promotional campaigns in evil boardrooms. They usually think it would *be cool if they did* something. The nature of promotion is to find things that would be cool if one did them.

You exactly what I meant, eyebeams. The "motive" wasn't promotional, it was something we thought we'd enjoy.

If it's aim is promotion, it sucks, I can tell you that. Worst. Promotion. Ever. Countless hours of work to achieve exactly no noticeable effect. If that was my aim, I'd have stopped after the first year!

 

[eyebeams]

Could you point out a specific instance where all judges would have to recuse themselves?

Here's one: All of the judges are associated with a nominated product through companies that contributed to a bundle it is sold in. PDF merchants are rather entangled in spots.

Of course, the temptation will be to try and use this one off as the criterion by which to measure everything else I'm saying, which would be a mistake.

 

[GwydapLlew]

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.

Except that the system /did/ follow its own rules and categories. Those rules and categories are established every year by the judges. Regardless of bias or perception, I just don't understand how you can say that the guidelines were circumvented (your words) when the guidelines were followed to the letter.

The judges determine the judging criteria and categories each year. The Shackled City Hardcover was determined by the judges - using the rules established for the judges - to fall into multiple categories.

It's like saying that Rome could only be nominated for Best Mini-Series or Best Historical Drama. If it's both, why can't it compete in both?

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.

See above. They didn't bend any 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.

How is this not accountable? If the people voting on the ENnies (you know, the fans of the games) did not consider Shackled City a better product than the others in those categories, it would have won. I don't see a lack of accountability - It's not like Lisa and Erik flew over to England and offered Russ a hundred dollars if he'd allow SCAP into multiple categories.

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.

Have you been reading the policies? If someone wants to be a judge, they self-nominate themselves. They are then voted on by anyone who cares about selecting the judges for the ENnies. Not members of ENWorld. Not Russ. Not Denise. The voters are everyone who cares to vote.

If the group of judges tends to have certain familiar faces, is it because of some behind-the-scenes dealing, or because those judges a) apply for the position, b) have done a good job in the position, and c) are voted to rejoin the judges the following year?

How can you get more populist than a self-nominating, anyone-who-wants-to-regardless-of-any-other-criteria-can-vote-on-the-nominees system?

 

[eyebeams]

You exactly what I meant, eyebeams. The "motive" wasn't promotional, it was something we thought we'd enjoy.

I do know what you meant. But the fact that you considered yourself to be in a position to offer it is indicates that you weren't a bunch of guys out of the blue. You had site traffic you hoped to leverage into successful awards, which you named after the site. They weren't called the d20 Awards or Noahs or anything.

Promotions can be fun and wholesome. I am not critiquing promoting the site or its offspiring at all. They can serve non-promotional goals as well as promotional goals. I think it's a good thing.

If it's aim is promotion, it sucks, I can tell you that. Worst. Promotion. Ever. Countless hours of work to achieve exactly no noticeable effect. If that was my aim, I'd have stopped after the first year!

Dropping them in the first year would have been premature. Plus, have you actually run the numbers to look for site hit and sales correlations? I'm not going to dig, but I somehow doubt nobody connects the awards with the site and publisher of the same name.

 

[GwydapLlew]

Eyebeams, you are clearly interested in improving the ENnies; if you didn't, you would be wasting your time debating this. Why don't you apply to be a judge?

I would be happy to second your nomination.

 

[DaveyJones]

Here's one: All of the judges are associated with a nominated product through companies that contributed to a bundle it is sold in. PDF merchants are rather entangled in spots.

Of course, the temptation will be to try and use this one off as the criterion by which to measure everything else I'm saying, which would be a mistake.

um... who???? i've never published anything for anybody in any industry.

my writing credits are limited to my work at CDC.

Davey "diaglo in disguise" Jones

 

[Morrus]

Dropping them in the first year would have been premature. Plus, have you actually run the numbers to look for site hit and sales correlations? I'm not going to dig, but I somehow doubt nobody connects the awards with the site and publisher of the same name.

Yes. Of course I have! One thing is absolutely clear. The ENnies, financially, are a net loss, of a significant size. As we expand and make more effort, that loss increases.

That's just the finances, not counting the countless man-hours.

Yet they continue.