ICE and the ENnies

[Treebore]

I think that untill the entrants are in and the Judges have a chance to look at them, it's too soon to speculate about which products will win, let alone be nominated.

????

If you say so.

 

[Crothian]

It won't be impossible to beat, but I can't think of a product put out in the same time frame that can beat it. Fortunately I am not aware of every product put out by everyone, so maybe one does exist.

WW's Prometheus might have a chance. It is very good and many people really like it. If Necro enters Rappen Athuk which might be doubtful because it was popular (ie it might be sold out) and a limited release it might also have a chance. If we can get Wizards to enter some of the Eberron books which I think is thew best stuff Wizards is doing it might also stand a chance. GR's M&M books always seem to do well but I'm not sure if they had a break out hit of any of them this year. Off the top of my head those might have a chance to equal Ptolus.

 

[fusangite]

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.

Indeed. So, how could you make the judging panel more representative of the gaming community than by holding a proportional representation election with candidacy and voting open to absolutely everybody?

Are you really suggesting that restricting people's democratic choice of who represents them is more representative than giving people unfettered choice to determine their representatives as they see fit?

 

[trancejeremy]

WW's Prometheus might have a chance. It is very good and many people really like it. If Necro enters Rappen Athuk which might be doubtful because it was popular (ie it might be sold out) and a limited release it might also have a chance.

Eh - I'm not sure RA:Re did actually sell out. As of like a month ago, I think Amazon.com stil lhad them. And even if they did, there was only a 1000 of them.

That said, it might win on hype alone. The real weak link in the Ennies (and this is something that just can't be solved) is that unless you actually own the products that end up being nominated, it's hard to vote on them (and really, impossible to vote on them fairly). And I personally rarely own any of the ones that get nominated.

In fact, this year I really have to wonder if the winning entries will really be determined by ballot stuffing from fansites of a given product line, than anything else. (I suspect that's how SR 4 won last year - it's got a fanatical, almost cultish fanbase at dumpshock)

 

[Treebore]

SR4 was really that much of an improvement. The judges would not have nominated it if it wasn't. SR4 deserved its win. Way better than SR1, 2, or 3. Part of it was just over all presentation of the rules, such as the template type of characters.

The only nominations last year I questioned not winning was VII. Since I didn't actually read that stuff, just looked through it and read opinions about it, I couldn't really say.

Plus, bottom line, fan choice awards are a popularity contest. They are voting for what they like, not doing an analytical assessment of its quality. Thats what the judges do to narrow it down to 5 nominations.

I think if a product just gets nominated it deserves as much of a look at as the ones that win silver and gold.

Nominations are made by the judges based on technical merit more than "I like it". The fan vote is practically all about "I like it best".

So for the last two years I have realized this and looked at, read up on, and frequently bought runner up/nominations because I finally realized what being nominated versus winning the popular vote means. The judges are the electoral college and the fans are the "popular vote". Which one means the most?

I like to give them both about equal weight, since I can in this situation.

If I become a judge I may have a very different opinion from now on. I strongly suspect I'l give nominations more weight than popular vote. Hopefully I will find out.

 

[Psion]

That said, it might win on hype alone. The real weak link in the Ennies (and this is something that just can't be solved) is that unless you actually own the products that end up being nominated, it's hard to vote on them (and really, impossible to vote on them fairly). And I personally rarely own any of the ones that get nominated.

I agree. Not much you can do about that short of buy all the products for all the voters. I don't think the ENnies budget will cover that.

For some publishers who aren't positioned well in the market, the nomination is more telling than the vote. It's just the way it is.

 

[billd91]

Indeed. So, how could you make the judging panel more representative of the gaming community than by holding a proportional representation election with candidacy and voting open to absolutely everybody?

Are you really suggesting that restricting people's democratic choice of who represents them is more representative than giving people unfettered choice to determine their representatives as they see fit?

I'm not sure how PR is going to help much since the judges presumably aren't in or forming partisan blocs. I can see the value of the STV providing us with an instant run-off election so that each vote has weight, but I think we'd be better off calling it instant run-off rather than PR. PR just doesn't seem to be the meaningful description in this situation.

 

[Bront]

????

If you say so.

I personaly intend to not go into potentialy judging with any preconcieved notions about what product might have a better chance to win than any other. It's the fair and objective thing to do.

At least it is in my opinion.

 

[eyebeams]

Are you really suggesting that restricting people's democratic choice of who represents them is more representative than giving people unfettered choice to determine their representatives as they see fit?

Surely I am. Are you allowed to vote noncitizens for polituical office where you live? How about out of state or province candidates for state/provincial representations? Are politicians in your country allowed to make political decisions about corporations they have a direct financial interest in?

Oh yeah: Why didn't I hear about this particular "Up the people!" position when it came to the *current* restrictions, which by your reasoning are just as awful as anything I'm proposing? The choices are already "fettered." Having those regulations actually serve their purported purpose is not a big deal.

 

[fusangite]

Surely I am. Are you allowed to vote noncitizens for polituical office where you live?

No. But I think the law is unnecessary. People in Canada lose votes over being dual citizens; I cannot imagine somebody being electable if they were not a citizen. I don't foresee a scenario where this would be allowed to happen.

How about out of state or province candidates for state/provincial representations?

They are allowed to run usually but not allowed to vote. I think this is a good system; non-residents tend to have a tough time winning seats, even if they are running for a major party. As a result, this phenomenon is rare. When it does happen, the individual tends to be a very qualified and prominent opinion leader. The man who currently serves as deputy leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, like a high profile Conservative candidate in a recent election, was actually residing in the United States at the start of the election in which they were running.

So, generally, I do not see the need to use legislation to restrict voters' choices for their own good. Such legislation is offensive, paternalistic and anti-democratic. The only reason it is not struck down more frequently is because the only people it disqualifies are people who would be unlikely to get elected anyway.

But these situations are not, in any case, analogous. You are proposing to micro-manage voter choice to a much greater extent by instituting such things as term limits. Your question, above, is analogous to asking, "Should people who don't play RPGs be allowed to run?" And my position is, "Of course; we can trust the voters not to choose them."

Are politicians in your country allowed to make political decisions about corporations they have a direct financial interest in?

No. I support rules that disqualify people due to conflict of interest. And the ENnies already have such a rule -- one of the few restrictions on candidacy that I support.

But, again, this is not relevant. You are proposing to increase the current level of restriction of voter choice. The fact that I support the current level of restriction cannot be taken as a point in favour of your position.

Oh yeah: Why didn't I hear about this particular "Up the people!" position when it came to the *current* restrictions, which by your reasoning are just as awful as anything I'm proposing?

I think that financial conflicts of interest are a special case and a form of candidacy restriction I favour.

If we did not restrict candidacy on this basis, we would end up with a lot of negative campaigning as candidates who were not in conflict would have to point out which of their competitors were. With even one or two entries into the race by people in conflict, the whole tone of the race would change from a positive one to a negative one and the resulting depression in voter turnout would offset any benefits that would result from widening those eligible for candidacy.

Similarly, unlike term limits, conflict of interest restrictions on candidacy and voting or candidacy are universal in mature democratic systems whereas term limits tend to be rare and more common in emerging democracies.

The choices are already "fettered."

This is a tired kind of argument eyebeams; I expected a little better from you. These kinds of all-or-nothing propositions just don't fly. You are also not allowed to run your pet for the ENnies but that is neither here nor there. What we are debating is whether democracy is served by further restricting people's choices. And you have offered no positive argument for why it is; all you have done is harangued me for being some kind of hypocrite by constructing a series of all-or-nothing propositions.

I think the elections should be as free as is practical. And they are.