ICE and the ENnies

[DaveMage]

We do.

I'm talking about an 'apparent' conflict of interest. Just because we have the skill sets doesn't mean that other entities don't see a conflict of interest as we're reviewers of a 'd20' site (althought several of us do reviews on other sites like RPG.net). and this may be seen as a conflict of interest or just keeping En World and the Ennies too close together.

I guess.

I'd have no problem with an ongoing judge panel of you, Psion, Crothian, John Cooper, and TB.

Your styles are different enough that if the 5 of you all have a great opinion of a product, it's probably fantastic.

I'd almost like to see a side-category in the ENnies that has a "EN World Staff Reviewers' Gold Choice" designation (or something like that).

 

[Umbran]

One thing that does seem to be occurring is that fewer people are interested in judging. I do see that as a problem because it begins to narrow the field. The interesting question then boils down to why are there fewer judges nominating themselves?

I used to worry that the judging panel would become too static, and I argued strongly about the system. But so far, the evidence points to a rate of judge turnover that I find acceptable.

I used to worry that the panel would not be static, but would become repetetive. Again, the accumulated evidence has put that worry to bed.

However, that does not mean the judge elections have not been predicatble. For the past... at least three or four years, I have been able to look at the field of potential judges, and accurately guess at least four out of the five who will win. There have been relatively few "dark horse" candidates winning. That may have left many considering the job feeling that there's little reason to bother.

Opening up the field to other sites does not alleviate this feeling. I would expect a candidate that posts a lot on RPG.net to be elected by people from RPG.net who support him. While some folks may vote cross-board, I wouldn't expect many to do so. Thus, someone considering taking part in the panel is still faced with the same quandry - if you aren't in the predictable head of the pack on your own board, there's little point in trying.

In theory, one might look at a narrow field as a bit of a problem. But, it seems to me the voters have not been using a wide field. Those who win are, if I recall correctly (and someone please correct me if I am wrong!), usually in a small, tight pack with many votes. Outside that small, predicatble pack, the candidates get markedly fewer votes.

If the voting were spread more broadly, I'd worry about a narrowing field. But, so long as the predictably-winning pack is present, the voters are going to get who they want anyway. Historically, the outliers have seemed to have little impact on the race, so as a practical matter the awards don't lose anything if they don't participate.

 

[Crothian]

I have a feeling this year there are going to be some changes in the Judges.

 

[Umbran]

I think that having personal insults and an actual threat of violence from other posters pass without moderation indicates something that's not partucularly healthy about the climate of discussion regarding the ENnies.

Over four years, what part of, "if you have a problem with moderation, take it up in e-mail with a moderator, don't discuss it in the thread," has failed to register to you?

That being said, this is important enough for me to address here. In saying the above, you seem to have made a couple of errors:

1)You mistake "current weather" for "climate". One thread that goes haywire does not a pattern make.

2)You seem to miss the fact that the storm here is largely the fault of every poster in the thread - yourself included.

Please allow me to be blunt: A few folks who disagree with how the ENnies operate came in here, but they weren't looking to discuss, or suggest. They were looking to dictate terms - they know the truth, they know the fixes, and everything else is wrongity, wrong-wrong, with wrong sauce. The methods and manners used were, intentionally or not, well-designed to strike an emotional chord in many of those with other opinions, putting them on the emotional defensive.

So, now we have an emotional interchange, and everyone removes a goodly amount of their reasoning ability, and drops it in the wastebasket.

The moderators are then stuck. We recognize badgering as a form of incivility, and that a few folks in here are guilty of it. But if we use that to moderate, we will be accused of "silencing teh troof!", which is less constructive than allowing the badgering to continue. And, because they're being badgered, the folks on the other side get huffy and insulting. But if we moderate them, then we allow badgering to become a viable strategy, which is also destructive. The mods are darned if we do, and darned if we don't.

So, all of you who are defending the current ENnies processes and methods - take care when you respond. Most of you are effectively guilty of feeding the fire. Note that there is no such thing as a "sense of humor" in this thread. If you cannot be polite, if you feel too strong an urge to be witty, or sly, or get a dig in, or if your emotions are otherwise engaged, you do more harm to your cause than good by responding.

And for the others (and I'm sorry eyebeams, but yours is the best recent example), recognize that in using phrases like "this is insufficient" or "this is unacceptable", you are inappropriately stating that you are the one who gets to determine overall acceptability - if you act as an authority when you aren't one, you are asking for problems. Take to heart the fact that you don't get to make the decisions, or dictate terms. If you are here to help, act like a volunteer, not a dictator. Make your statements, maybe ask and answer some questions, and then allow the people with authority to decide. If you don't have actual hard data, all you have is a plausible argument - recognize that as an opinion no better founded than anyone else's!

Someone has already gotten a tempban for taking this argument too far. Please be advised that we are no longer terribly shy of more such. If you feel any further need to discuss why we moderate this thread the way we do, take it to e-mail.

 

[fusangite]

I think the current pattern is not really acceptable. This is not because of any deficiencies in the judges. A three year limit doesn't change the pattern and unnecessarily bars former judges for life, which is why I suggest a two year waiting period before reapplying.

Eyebeams, first of all, I am kind of surprised that you have not replied to my previous post on this thread. It seems to me that much of your reasoning is a result of conflating the categories of awarding organization and sponsoring organization.

However, as to this point, I was specifically tasked two years ago with dealing with the problem of incumbency on the panel. After a lot of work, we have completely changed the electoral system from last year to this. It seems very presumptuous on your part to assume that the problems with elections held under a multi-member plurality system that showed interim results throughout the voting process will continue under an STV system with hidden results. Why don't you wait to see if the reforms we have already instituted work before proposing additional ones?

I believe that by instituting these reforms, we will weaken incumbency by, among other things, enabling anti-incumbent voters to concentrate their votes much more effectively. STV, as a system is known worldwide for having this property and is loathed by political insiders for exactly this reason. Australian and Irish legislators routinely attempt to abolish STV only to be quickly put in their place by voters. And nobody who deals with STV systems ever talks about the need for term limits because they seem totally unnecessary.

Rotation and/or absolute or consecutive term limits tend only to be instituted in jurisdictions that have highly pro-incumbent voting systems. If you want to talk about the flaws of the ENnies election system or suggest solutions, I recommend that you examine the system we have now, rather than continuing to try and fix a system we have abandoned.

 

[eyebeams]

Eyebeams, first of all, I am kind of surprised that you have not replied to my previous post on this thread. It seems to me that much of your reasoning is a result of conflating the categories of awarding organization and sponsoring organization.

However, as to this point, I was specifically tasked two years ago with dealing with the problem of incumbency on the panel. After a lot of work, we have completely changed the electoral system from last year to this. It seems very presumptuous on your part to assume that the problems with elections held under a multi-member plurality system that showed interim results throughout the voting process will continue under an STV system with hidden results. Why don't you wait to see if the reforms we have already instituted work before proposing additional ones?

I find it interesting that it is "very presumptuous" to critique a system whose openness is supposed to be its virtue.

Rotation and/or absolute or consecutive term limits tend only to be instituted in jurisdictions that have highly pro-incumbent voting systems.

The ENnies use a demonstrably pro-incombent voting system, as witnessed by the presence of multiple incumbents on the roster once again.

 

[eyebeams]

I used to worry that the judging panel would become too static, and I argued strongly about the system. But so far, the evidence points to a rate of judge turnover that I find acceptable.

I used to worry that the panel would not be static, but would become repetetive. Again, the accumulated evidence has put that worry to bed.

Does Teflon Billy wear a different disguise every year or something? It seems out of character for him.

 

[kingpaul]

The ENnies use a demonstrably pro-incombent voting system, as witnessed by the presence of multiple incumbents on the roster once again.

Ummm, the judges haven't been voted for yet. Its up to the electorate to vote them up or down.

 

[Crothian]

The ENnies use a demonstrably pro-incombent voting system, as witnessed by the presence of multiple incumbents on the roster once again.

I'm biased but I also think it might be because the Judges do a pretty good job

 

[2WS-Steve]

That's arbitrarily appealing to the vote.

I don't quite understand what's wrong with appealing to a core value such as everyone gets their own vote, nor why appealing to it would be arbitrary.

I'm not talking here about some abstract principle of democracy, but the simple principle that in the vote we each get our say and we each get our own chance to convince others that our choice criteria are the best.

One reason we want to limit the number of rules restricting who can and cannot declare judge candidacy is that more rules shift power to the small group of people running the rules committee. Essentially, the committee's votes count for more than the rest of the public since the committee is able to limit the public's choices.

If the voting process was designed to also determine policy directly, then there wouldn't be *any* rules, would there? Hell, there wouldn't even be judges, just three rounds of voting for noms, categories, then winners.

(In fact, such a system is perfectly workable. If you're serious about all democracy all the time, then you should argue to emove the judges. Arguing for the process as it is is not an argument in favour of the wisdom of the fans, but an argument that the fans are guided by policy X rather than Y.)

I said earlier that I wanted to avoid the representative democracy discussion but since you're bringing it up I'll just mention briefly why I, as a voter, prefer it.

There's just too much stuff out there for me to look through it all. By voting for judges I'm able to delegate that choice to someone who's committed to devoting the time to looking through all the product and who I think would be good at it/do so honestly.

I could just vote directly, but then I'd miss out on a bunch of books that were excellent, but slipped below my radar.

What I've proposed is consistent with the stated goals of the awards. In this thread, Morrus talks about how he doesn't want industry interference. The virtue of the awards is that it's supposed to be by and for fans. I am confident that eliminating part-timers and repeat candidates will lead to more new faces with equally sharp insights. I'm disturbed at suggestions that fans need to be able to pick a past judge/past industry person. Why is that? If people think that there really are so few able potential judges, it actually shows *less* confidence in fandom, not more.

That's perfectly fine, but take your reasoning to the voters and let them decide, instead of a rules committee.

The ENnies use a demonstrably pro-incombent voting system, as witnessed by the presence of multiple incumbents on the roster once again.

I don't think a history of popular or well-respected members of the community demonstrates pro-incumbency in the voting system. At most it demonstrates pro-incumbency in the voters.

Even then it simply makes sense that if I liked a candidate last year, then I'll probably like them again this year. I don't see why my liking and voting for someone in the past is a good reason that we should set up a rule specifically preventing me from voting for them in the future. Again, why can't I just make that decision myself?

This is also markedly different from U.S. elections, where the incumbent gets stamping privileges, builds up warchests, brings pork back to his constituents, and so on, which do give them significant advantages.