ICE and the ENnies

[Umbran]

Does Teflon Billy wear a different disguise every year or something?

Nope. But my thoughts on incumbency are perhaps somewhat less stringent than yours. His presence as a nominee, and even as a judge, gives me no distress. As of this writing, it seems there are only two out of the ten current potential judges that are running again this year. As it stands right now, we must have at least half the panel turn over. That's sufficient for my mind.

Given how few of the other candidates have experience, I find myself hoping that at least one of those guys wins, if only to help get the new judges up to speed on how things are best done. A completely greenhorn panel will have significant difficulties.

 

[billd91]

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?

The main advantage an incumbent gets in any voting situation is a track record, assuming that track record is generally positive. For some voters, the fact that one of the candidates has done the job successfully before is a good incentive to vote for him or her again rather than go with a relative unknown.
I don't see a problem with that since, if the track record were generally negative, that same track record would be a disadvantage.

 

[diaglo]

And I know a few of the judges, like myself, dropped off stuff that we weren't going to keep to help fuel the massive oil, I mean, gaming , profits.

yes, i did too.

also to help the volunteers feel appreciated.

 

[eyebeams]

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.

That's not it at all. If you really do want the vote to decide everything, then you should logically campaign for the abolition of judges. If you support the judging system you support the associated regulations, which means that it's inconsistent to appeal to voters to perform regulation-like activities.

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.

Doesn't seem that way. You're arguing for that when it suits the status quo and standing for an antidemocratic element when it also suits the status quo (and that's your right, but it doesn't have the hallmarks of a consistent position). This sort of principle can't stand within the awards *as they are*, much less how they might be changed.

I'd be perfectly fine with the idea of abolishing judges entirely, myself. The tools are there to allow it.

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.

That power shift already exists. Rules are just as capable of limiting its influence as extending it. In fact, the incumbent ban would do just that. In essence, I'm only proposing one new rule and altering an existing rule. This is hardly cumbersome.

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.

This invites the response that was used on Tim Dugger. If you or any other voter doesn't care to come to the site and make your choice, why should anyone give you a hand?

Yeah, that sucks, but it's the consequence of a rhetorical commitment to a democratic process.

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

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.

Nah, I think it's systemic. For one thing, the current rules *do* look like they were designed to serve the needs of probable incumbents.

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?

Again, the logical conclusion to this line of argument is to just do away with judges. Lack of convenience is not accepted as a valid counterargument in other contexts, so it shouldn't be applied to this one.

But if the ENnies are to better function as a *general* fan-run awards instead of being tied to a clique *while* retaining judges, my suggestions are not onerous and would, in my opinion, considerable improve the degree to which the awards actually reflect fan preferences.

Frankly, the judging slate shouldn't require an STV system and multiple flamewars to move beyond a strong trend for incumbents. That fact that this apparently *is* driving this sort of thing is not a compliment to the awards system.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This invites the response that was used on Tim Dugger. If you or any other voter doesn't care to come to the site and make your choice, why should anyone give you a hand?

Hmm?

The judging panel helps to do away with a 'brand recognition' bias. If the voters vote directly on products, then in all likelihood, most of the voters will not have read most of the products they have the option to vote for.

If Product A is good, and a thousand people have read it; and Product B is excellent, and twenty people have read it; then Product A will receive many times the popular votes of Product B.

If Product A is good, and a thousand people (including the five judges) have read it; and Product B is excellent, and twenty people (including the five judges) have read it; then Product B will receive more judges' votes than Product A; people are more likely to have a look at a previously-unnoticed product that makes a judge's shortlist than a previously unnoticed product amidst a sea of other nominations, surely?

Should the awards reflect quality, or sales figures?

-Hyp.

 

[2WS-Steve]

That's not it at all. If you really do want the vote to decide everything, then you should logically campaign for the abolition of judges. If you support the judging system you support the associated regulations, which means that it's inconsistent to appeal to voters to perform regulation-like activities.

Doesn't seem that way. You're arguing for that when it suits the status quo and standing for an antidemocratic element when it also suits the status quo (and that's your right, but it doesn't have the hallmarks of a consistent position). This sort of principle can't stand within the awards *as they are*, much less how they might be changed.

Coming from an academic philosophy background and knowing that you come from an academic philosophy background I'd think you'd understand that accusations of inconsistency seldom lead to constructive debate and typically just leave departments in shambles while everyone accuses everyone else of being a hypocrite, albeit in code-words.

I don't think it's logically impossible that a good system have limited rules regarding who can be a candidate, and yet still have those candidates do the stuff that candidates do in representative democracies.

I also think it's possible for someone to believe the above, maybe even mistakenly, but certainly honestly.

This invites the response that was used on Tim Dugger. If you or any other voter doesn't care to come to the site and make your choice, why should anyone give you a hand?

Yeah, that sucks, but it's the consequence of a rhetorical commitment to a democratic process.

First, I didn't make that response to Tim Dugger.

Second, what I was saying is that I don't have the time to devote two or more full time weeks to poring over scores of RPG books that came out over the last year. That's very different from spending a few minutes to half an hour going through a website to vote for your choices.

Is that an unreasonable distinction?

 

[diaglo]

Second, what I was saying is that I don't have the time to devote two or more full time weeks to poring over scores of RPG books that came out over the last year.

it is only the rpg products submitted that you have to review.

but still that is a lot.

i think we got 214+ last year.

i know i took at least several hours each day just reading the products. i also had to write notes and critiques.

if a full time week is 40 hours. try at least 6 full time weeks for the reading alone and you have a better idea.

by late may/early june it was a mad house at my place trying to get my notes in order while still receiving product to review.

edit: it is reading for comprehension not just reading. you have to be able to use this stuff in play.

 

[Erik Mona]

I'd like to jump in at this late hour to announce that the ENnie Award-winning Shackled City Adventure Path is still available for purchase at Paizo.com.

--Erik

 

[fusangite]

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

This year we are using a voting system different from the one we used for the previous 6 elections. You cannot infer anything about the system we have switched to by observing the system we have switched from. We switched from Multi-Member Plurality to STV.

You are trying to use your ignorance of the new voting system as a weapon here. The fact that you have not bothered to figure out the difference between the system we have abandoned and the one we have now is not a point in favour of the position you are staking out.

 

[SteveC]

In looking over this thread, I find that it is getting increasingly difficult to tell what the positions of the particulars are. At this point, I think it might be appropriate to call for those people who have an issue with the process to succinctly and specifically state what those problems are. In a lot of debates like this one, we see problems because we don't clearly define what the problem is to begin with. I think I know what the problems are, but I think it would really help get something accomplished if we could get them out into the open without the hyperbole. I know everyone thinks they know what's being argued, but we have had enough posts with "you said X" followed by "no I didn't," to make this warranted.

Feel free to copy and paste your problems from earlier in the thread, but let's get the specifics on the table so that they can be addressed substantively. That way we can see what the real issues are and then move on to what the ENnies are supposed to be about.

Any takers?

--Steve