Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
ICE and the ENnies
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="eyebeams" data-source="post: 3339741" data-attributes="member: 9225"><p>Actually, term limits are the sole new feature I am proposing, so I don't see how it's Awful Micromanaging.</p><p></p><p>Oh, and how are they not analogous, aside from you saying so? It is generally customary to provide supporting arguments for your position, instead of making your position, your argument.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, no, it's not analogous to this. It's a a response to an obvious trend in the awards that by its very nature cannot represent a wide variety of gamers. What you are essentially proposing is that a vague sentiment about democracy -- which the awards don't follow, anyway -- take precedence over actually examining them. The unfortunate thing about sentimental propositions is that they are by their nature extreme. If you have led the discussion to this position don't be surprised when there's revelant fallout.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, by your sentimental democratic argument, they aren't special at all. After all, we should trust voters not to vote for these people, shouldn't we? From this position, where democracy is an end in of itself, there is not one whit of difference. It really is an all or nothing position.</p><p></p><p>Of course, if you have a utilitarian argument, then democracy is *not* an end, and it's okay to fool with it for the sake of improving the process. That's means you can restrict conflicts of interest, but guess what? The utilitarian argument doesn't filter out the idea that having an award where up to a third of the judges *aren't* repeats every year is probably not a bad idea.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So what? And how would this depress voter turnout? That's an entire speculative statement and, I submit, probably incorrect speculation.</p><p></p><p>Hell, the awards probably have more diversity in large part *because of* this thread.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You realize that an award is not much like a democratic government? And that many, many small scale democratic organizations, such as student unions and nonprofits, to limit incumbency?</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>This is your extreme position, not mine. You're all about democracy as an end. This *is* an extreme position. I have provided not one, but two workable systems, one of which would remove judges and be far more democratic than anything you seem prepared to consider. If your position is out of utility, then changing one rule and adding another are trivial.</p><p></p><p>The feeling I get from you -- and from *many* of the rest of you -- is that you're most interested in supporting some abstract concept of the awards and it's "good name," as if I'm staging some unruly assault on either.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Strawman *and* reductio ad absurdum.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You've merely refused to identify such. I've made it clear that I believe the awards are best served by having fresh candidates with absolutely no paid industry ties for a significant period (instead of the unworkable year), and you've made it clear that proposing such really hurts your feelings. I am only responsible for *one* of these things.</p><p></p><p>The funny thing about appeals to democracy is that they are *meaningless* without talking about the good it does. And once you admit utility is a factor you must consider all things that might improve utility. You either took this extreme position yourself or took a utilitarian position, didn;t explain it, and wouldn't engage other utilitarian arguments. If you wanted to stall and damage meaningful discussion, that's a great way to go about it, but maybe you're just making a mistake. I really don't know.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Do you actually think you have formulated the perfect form of the awards? Perfect? Really? Because that's what it sounds like.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="eyebeams, post: 3339741, member: 9225"] Actually, term limits are the sole new feature I am proposing, so I don't see how it's Awful Micromanaging. Oh, and how are they not analogous, aside from you saying so? It is generally customary to provide supporting arguments for your position, instead of making your position, your argument. Well, no, it's not analogous to this. It's a a response to an obvious trend in the awards that by its very nature cannot represent a wide variety of gamers. What you are essentially proposing is that a vague sentiment about democracy -- which the awards don't follow, anyway -- take precedence over actually examining them. The unfortunate thing about sentimental propositions is that they are by their nature extreme. If you have led the discussion to this position don't be surprised when there's revelant fallout. Actually, by your sentimental democratic argument, they aren't special at all. After all, we should trust voters not to vote for these people, shouldn't we? From this position, where democracy is an end in of itself, there is not one whit of difference. It really is an all or nothing position. Of course, if you have a utilitarian argument, then democracy is *not* an end, and it's okay to fool with it for the sake of improving the process. That's means you can restrict conflicts of interest, but guess what? The utilitarian argument doesn't filter out the idea that having an award where up to a third of the judges *aren't* repeats every year is probably not a bad idea. So what? And how would this depress voter turnout? That's an entire speculative statement and, I submit, probably incorrect speculation. Hell, the awards probably have more diversity in large part *because of* this thread. You realize that an award is not much like a democratic government? And that many, many small scale democratic organizations, such as student unions and nonprofits, to limit incumbency? This is your extreme position, not mine. You're all about democracy as an end. This *is* an extreme position. I have provided not one, but two workable systems, one of which would remove judges and be far more democratic than anything you seem prepared to consider. If your position is out of utility, then changing one rule and adding another are trivial. The feeling I get from you -- and from *many* of the rest of you -- is that you're most interested in supporting some abstract concept of the awards and it's "good name," as if I'm staging some unruly assault on either. Strawman *and* reductio ad absurdum. You've merely refused to identify such. I've made it clear that I believe the awards are best served by having fresh candidates with absolutely no paid industry ties for a significant period (instead of the unworkable year), and you've made it clear that proposing such really hurts your feelings. I am only responsible for *one* of these things. The funny thing about appeals to democracy is that they are *meaningless* without talking about the good it does. And once you admit utility is a factor you must consider all things that might improve utility. You either took this extreme position yourself or took a utilitarian position, didn;t explain it, and wouldn't engage other utilitarian arguments. If you wanted to stall and damage meaningful discussion, that's a great way to go about it, but maybe you're just making a mistake. I really don't know. Do you actually think you have formulated the perfect form of the awards? Perfect? Really? Because that's what it sounds like. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
ICE and the ENnies
Top