ICE and the ENnies

[eyebeams]

Well, you'll need to be a bit clearer then, because if by "running the numbers" you weren't talking about the financial side-effects of a "promotional tool" I don't understand what you're getting at?

Well, first you'd have to figure out your gross from various streams during each stage of the awards (not *from* the awards). I'm honestly not sure how you could next realistically estimate your gross *without* the awards (since that situation has never existed) and apply the cost of the awards to the difference.

I suppse you could not have the awards one year to test it, but I don't think that'd be a great idea.

 

[DaveyJones]

Remember that this was in reference to Billd91, who said that there shouldn't necessarily be industry restrictions. If you had a significant number of active industry people you'f get problems like this. For to OAs, the size of the Academy is supposed to take care of this. Then again, I have no idea how big it is now.

Did you buy a copy of Dread?

 

[eyebeams]

nope. but don't lob insults in the general area and not expect me to react. i did a lot of work. i spent a lot of time on this. and i took time off work. my own vacation time.

I don't know where you think you're being insulted.

 

[Morrus]

Well, first you'd have to figure out your gross from various streams during each stage of the awards (not *from* the awards). I'm honestly not sure how you could next realistically estimate your gross *without* the awards (since that situation has never existed) and apply the cost of the awards to the difference.

I thought it was clear that was what "running the numbers" meant.

So, at the risk of repeating myself... "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."

Of course, I can't run the numbers without the ENnies, but I can look at spikes throughoout the year and see that they do not correspond with any aspect of the ENnies. There just isn't the throughput of "Hear about ENnies" -> "Visit EN World" -> "Find EN Publishing" (who can't enter) - > "Buy ENP's stuff". Just doesn't happen. CS accounts and advertising have no notable change, either.

 

[GwydapLlew]

Yes. The judges fudged their own rules.

How? You keep saying that they did something they weren't supposed to. Assume that I am an idiot and spell it out for me.

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.

Conveniently, I have my SCAP HC right in front of me. It's a 405-page book. The adventures take up 272 pages of it. That leaves ... a large minority of non-adventure material.

In your opinion, it does not qualify. That's perfectly acceptable, but (eyebeams approves) != (what the fans thought).

D'you really think that brand recognition did not factor into affairs at all?

Do you really think we'll ever live in a world were it doesn't? These aren't double-blind controlled experiments; they are an awards ceremony.

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.

I'm quite aware of "real world organizations," I've even occasionally had jobs with them.

I'm not sure what your issue with this is. The ENnies grew out of ENWorld. They have slowly weaned themselves away from ENWorld. If you are claiming a bais towards ENPublishing, I'd take a look at the number of awards they've won from the ENnies. If you are claiming a bias towards d20...then you haven't been paying attention to who has been winning the ENnies.

To quote FanPro after winning Game of the Year: d20 causes cancer. That was said at the ENnies.

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.

Poor controls? "Anyone can nominate themselves as a judge if they choose to do so." "Anyone who wishes to vote on who should be an ENnies judge can do so."

Those are horrible controls. Anyone can do anything they wish.

By having a system that weeds out acclaim and leapfrog candidates.

Pithy phrasing, but what do you mean by that? Weed out acclaim? It's an awards ceremony! Leapfrog candidates? What are you implying?

 

[DaveyJones]

I don't know where you think you're being insulted.

somewhere you've said the judges aren't fans. and that they fudged. and that they have industry ties. and...

i was a judge.

 

[GwydapLlew]

Because I have an active financial interest in the hobby. I'd like the fan award to be an actual fan award.

Then encourage fans of the industry to get involved. The problem is solved at that point.

Russ and Denise have constantly advocated and supported more companies getting their fans involved in the process.

 

[eyebeams]

somewhere you've said the judges aren't fans. and that they fudged. and that they have industry ties. and...

i was a judge.

Some of the judges have industry ties. And they fudged the rules for their own categories with Shackled City. If you believed otherwise on the latter, you wouldn't have voted against including it, would you?

 

[CaptainChaos]

Let me just say, less is more people. Make your point, support your argument, and then let it rest.

 

[mearls]

The guy who popped in on this thread to remind everyone that he owns the awads and can do whatever he likes with them is presumably the same Morrus that's here. I highly doubt a Clone Saga or Bizarro Morrus is involved.

OK, I think I understand the root of our disagreement.

I don't see Morrus's involvement in both EN World Publishing and the Ennies as a conflict of interest. Instead, I think that his involvement speaks to the transparency of the process. We all know that Morrus is in charge of both the awards and a publisher. We also know that the awards are linked to EN World. Since we know all that, we can make better informed judgments on the awards.

If, for example, one company kept winning awards, and it was later revealed that Morrus was involved in that company, there's clear ground to make a judgment there.

There's an element of trust in an award process that things are fair and proper. While on the face of it having the same guy run the awards and a PDF house looks suspicious, I think the awards have earned more respect and trust than other awards. I agree that, taken as a theoretical, such an arrangement isn't great, but looking at the results I haven't seen any sign of undue influence. Is there potential? Of course, but the Ennies are transparent enough that informed gamers could spot conflicts of interest.

For example, I think it's a terrible reach to say that Shackled City's wins last year were due to any improper influence. Morrus doesn't run Paizo, and I think that reasonable people could disagree with SC's placement in the awards. In this case, I trust the judges and Morrus to make the call. OTOH, if SC was an ENWP book, then I could see a justified demand for change. In such a case, the awards would (regretably) lose their prestige.

In comparison, the OAs were consistently opaque in their processes. Both rounds of voting were completed by either a group chosen by the people running the OAs or by people willing to pay AAGAD dues. It's easy for a publisher, through social connections or by simply buying memberships, to slant voting.

The Ennies have open voting for judges, open nominations for judges, open entry for publishers and designers, and a final, open voting process. The people in charge of the award are clearly idenfitied and their biases known. That's not how the OAs work.

In the case of EN World, we clearly see which publisher could have an unfair advantage, yet we haven't seen that advantage exploited.

I think there's also an issue of ownership at stake here. You mention that voting is centered here on EN World. Is that ideal? I don't think it matters either way; it has to be voted somewhere, and the 'net is fluid enough that whether I vote at URL A or B, I don't think it matters. It's not like we're asking voters to drive to a polling place 50 miles out of their way.

More importantly, the people behind EN World took the time, effort, and energy to build these awards and make them what they are. Why should they move to a different site? Again, the market will bear out whether they make the right decisions. So far, things have worked well enough. Why should Morrus lose control of the awards he created when he has, thus far, proven more than capable of the task?

Again, it comes down to transparency. We can see what the stakeholders have to gain here. If the Ennies thrive, EN World gets more traffic. If in someone's view that's an unacceptable conflict of interest, so be it. But I think that reasonable people can see that such a situation has yet to come to pass and shows no sign of looming as a threat.

As to the Ennies as a populist triumph, the awards have flourished without any direction from publishers other than Morrus*. They've completely avoided the passive-aggressive in-fighting and masturbatory backslapping that plagues industry discourse. The OAs exist as a warning for what happens when the people who win awards also run them. They're a clear testament to what happens when the portion of the hobby who decides whether awards mean anything or not (gamers) decides to put together an award.

*It's worth noting that, AFAIK, Morrus was not a publisher when he started the Ennies. The first ones were awarded in a chat room back in 2001. I believe 2002 was the first year they were presented at GenCon.