Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eyebeams" data-source="post: 3333327" data-attributes="member: 9225">I'm not really interested in mudsligning. But if you're arguing on the basis of a certain set of values shouldn't those values inform a position about the whole policy?You're exhorting me to trust the voters. My reply is that you can trust the voters all the way to getting rid of the judges -- and all of the sudden, the primacy of voter rights seems to erode. If this restriction sits with you in principle, and the current restrictions also sit well with you, it is difficult to see how slight adjustments to them -- since they already exist -- would suddenly be a problem.Representative democracies include legal and social consequences that extend to candidates' public lives that are not even vaguely approximated by gaming awards.I didn't say you did. But an argument based on making the awards more convenient is related to a chunk of other arguments that people have argued against vigorously,I think it overstates things. No judges doesn't obligate gamers to study all the books themselves. Gamers can simply give props to the products they've encountered and enjoyed. In fact, the latter seems like a much more representative mirror of the hobby than having products go from a publisher to a judge without there being anything resembling the normal process of purchasing and appeciating rpgs.If you *do* have judges, then that means it's desireable to come up with mechanisms to make sure they resemble a broad range of authentic fan responses. Having a broad range means it's certainly less desireable to have incumbents. Having "expert" repeat judges doesn;t have any parallel in ordinary fan experience at all.</blockquote>

Verification