ICE and the ENnies

[eyebeams]

I can't speak for anyone else, but in my mind, the judge system reproduces the following effect:

Clearly not every fan is familiar with every product. What would happen if we take five representative gamers and RPG fans and gave them every product of the year (at least every product submitted, of course), making sure that they read them all and took good notes, rather than simply relying on memories of the product?

In my opinion, the results that come out of the judging process are an excellent representation of the answer to that question.

I don't think a group with a significant number of encumbents and a higher then average propertion wit industry ties are "representative" in this way. If judges are going to be at the heart of the awards, I would indeed like them to be as representative as practically possible.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I don't think a group with a significant number of encumbents and a higher then average propertion wit industry ties are "representative" in this way. If judges are going to be at the heart of the awards, I would indeed like them to be as representative as practically possible.

But you will admit, at least, that barring your incumbent complaint (which I don't agree with, as the turnover rate seems fine to me, but I certainly respect your views there), the Judge system at its heart does successfully achieve the goal in my post, right? I don't have the answer for you about your incumbent and insider issues, but at least we can agree, I hope, that I've satisfactorally answered for you why I think that the Judge system (at its core principles) is actually more successful at representing the kind of fan vote that we want in a nomination (a vote informed by all the products of the year) than a popular vote nomination.

 

[Treebore]

I disagree that the Judges are the "heart" of the awards. The fans are the heart of the awards.

Judges are just facilatators. Separate the wheat from the chafe, so to speak. Let people know what products are pretty darn good, whether they have heard about them or not.

The only problem here is that in certain categories there was a lot of "good" product submitted. The judges themselves wished for a way to say, "Hey, this wasn't a top 5 product, but it was 9th, and I think everything in the top 10 should be given a serious look by fans interested in other product lines."

I believe that is why "Honorable Mention" was instituted, to try to raise awarenes about at least a few additional products.

Still, the "heart" of the ENnies is the fan vote, not the judges who whittle down the field to a manageable size.

I think the real fear about the judges is that certain publishers, and maybe even fans, think that if their product had made it to the final 5 they would have won. So they may think that Judges are why they lost.

Which is true. Judges do have that power. However that is why there is an odd number of judges. The 5th is a tie breaker on any vote. No one can abstain. Plus that is why the are voted for every year.

So yes, there is room for "unfairness" to occur, but until something better is suggested the ENnies has the best and fairest system going that I am aware of, that is a "Fan Award".

Plus the system is still evolving. Will a "codified judging guidleine" be created? Probably. It is going to be a detailed list of checkmarks. Not entirely though. Products being judged vary greatly, and new ones are showing up every year. So no set of guidelines will ever be "comprehensive".

So the best guideline I see being written is a core baseline of criteria by which to judge products by. It will still leave the final decisions wide open to each judges interpretation. So in reality, these guidelines are a false security blanket. It still comes down to the collective judges opinion. Opinions are always open to disagreement and argument.

So I see the current/past "judging" to be just as legitimate as any future years in which some kind of codified system is utilized. It is still, and always will be, Judges opinion that gets a product to the final 5 in each category.

 

[Wystan]

From my perspective, they appear to contradict each other. Your 4th comment is clearly in favour of the kinds of static rules that your 6th comment opposes. A rule where you get judges to do the noms for you is in fact a rule, and the judges already abide by certain rules. So minor adjustments to those rules don't seemto violate the spirit of the awards.

Your comments that people will "play the rules" in our community make examining them carefully seem even more significant.

(Bold by me)

So minor changes to those rules, like say allowing a supplement to compete in two complementary categories should be allowed?

The rules as stand are that items are submitted to th judges who then determine categories and participants. The community then votes. There is no rigid rule structure between the two to specifically stop the 'Game Producers' from knowing how to manipulate the vote as it could change as needed every year.

 

[eyebeams]

But you will admit, at least, that barring your incumbent complaint (which I don't agree with, as the turnover rate seems fine to me, but I certainly respect your views there), the Judge system at its heart does successfully achieve the goal in my post, right? I don't have the answer for you about your incumbent and insider issues, but at least we can agree, I hope, that I've satisfactorally answered for you why I think that the Judge system (at its core principles) is actually more successful at representing the kind of fan vote that we want in a nomination (a vote informed by all the products of the year) than a popular vote nomination.

I think it would be perfectly possible to base everything on fan votes without adding much more complexity, but yes, judges can still serve a useful purpose. I just happen to think that there's room for improvement from the perspective of it being a fan award.

 

[eyebeams]

(Bold by me)

So minor changes to those rules, like say allowing a supplement to compete in two complementary categories should be allowed?

The rules as stand are that items are submitted to th judges who then determine categories and participants. The community then votes. There is no rigid rule structure between the two to specifically stop the 'Game Producers' from knowing how to manipulate the vote as it could change as needed every year.

That's not an administrative rule *for* the judges, but something set up *by* the judges that proved to be problematic.

 

[Erik Mona]

Proved to be problematic to whom?

--Erik

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

That's not an administrative rule *for* the judges, but something set up *by* the judges that proved to be problematic.

I would say, "was thought by some to be problematic."

There are some who thought it was fine and may have complained the other way. Because there is not consensus that SC was incorrectly placed, using the word "proved" is inaccurate.

EDIT: Erik, if you had used more words, you wouldn't have beaten my post...

 

[SteveC]

Proved to be problematic to whom?

--Erik

Erik,
I am wondering much the same thing. I know there was a problem for some because of Shackled City last year, but the awards seem to be getting better each year. Unless I'm missing it, it looks to be a very vocal army of two doing the complaining. In Rasyr's case, I can see where he is coming from a bit. In Eyebeams case, please forgive me mods, I have no idea what point he's trying to make.

One thing I'm wondering about for this year is Ptolus. It looks to be this year's 800 pound gorilla, since it is a once in a lifetime RPG product. I think it will be a sticky issue for the judges to consider this year.

--Steve

 

[Rystil Arden]

Erik,
I am wondering much the same thing. I know there was a problem for some because of Shackled City last year, but the awards seem to be getting better each year. Unless I'm missing it, it looks to be a very vocal army of two doing the complaining. In Rasyr's case, I can see where he is coming from a bit. In Eyebeams case, please forgive me mods, I have no idea what point he's trying to make.

One thing I'm wondering about for this year is Ptolus. It looks to be this year's 800 pound gorilla, since it is a once in a lifetime RPG product. I think it will be a sticky issue for the judges to consider this year.

--Steve

Actually, that's a good point--"What ideas do you have about Ptolus" is a pretty decent question to ask the judge nominees if that question hasn't already been asked.