GwydapLlew said: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.
Yes. The judges fudged their own rules.
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?
Because we'e not talking about a TV show. We're talking about substantial differences in content (like dozens of pages of adventure material as the dominant content of the book) between the eventual winner and every competitor in the category.
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.
D'you really think that brand recognition did not factor into affairs at all?
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.
As Tim pointed out, activity is centered on this site. It is disingenuous to claim that this has no effect on selection. In a beter-working system, this would have checks and balances to prevent a system of near acclaim. Believe it or not, in real organizations, no-contests are a sign of *failing* accountability.
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?
No, it is not a conspiratorial strawman As I have repeatedly said it isn't, why don't you put that one to bed? The reason is because there are poor controls on judge selection that tend to a certain sameness in selections.
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?
By having a system that weeds out acclaim and leapfrog candidates.