Monte on Origins awards and ENnies

[Monte At Home]

After pretty much saying that 5 judges, of differing views and tastes, were not qualified select the top products in each cateogy, he turns around and effectively says that he, alone, can choose the best. .

You know, normally I ignore your posts, but this is just a lie and you diminish yourself by saying it. I never said or even implied that the judges weren't qualified. I criticized the process, because I didn't think they have enough time to review everything. I was informed that they do, the process was explained to me, and I apologized to them. I still don't think that the ENnies process is perfect, but it's pretty good.

(And Year's Best d20 doesn't judge products, it judges individual pieces of material. It's got nothing to do with the ENnies or the Origin Awards.)

 

[Rasyr]

Shouldn't all such awards *be* marketing tools?

After all, if the awards themselves have no market value, then what's the point?

Awards CAN be marketing tools, however, that is not supposed to be their primary purpose. Their primary purpose is to be an award, for excellence, for quality, for whatever the awards is given for.

However, least year after the ENnies, a few companies did complain because they felt that they could not use the awards as a marketing tool because the awards were given past the "3 month window"/life-cycle of their products. That was a large issue for some publishers.

The viability of using an award as a marketing tool is left up to the award winner. It should not be the main focus of the award itself.

 

[Rasyr]

You know, normally I ignore your posts,

Awww.. Gee thanks... That makes me feel so warm and tingly....

but this is just a lie and you diminish yourself by saying it.

Maybe I am misremembering what you actually said, and if I did it was unintentional. However, that WAS the impression that I got from your comments. (and remember, that this is from a year ago, so memory is likely to be hazy a little bit.

And, naw, it doesn't diminish me at all. I see something I think is wrong, and I will squak about it, plain and simple. I will even offer to help fix things, if I think that I am qualified to help.

I never said or even implied that the judges weren't qualified. I criticized the process, because I didn't think they have enough time to review everything. I was informed that they do, the process was explained to me, and I apologized to them.

Was the apology as public as your original remarks that so infuriated the judges?

I still don't think that the ENnies process is perfect, but it's pretty good.

And do you realize that the OAs process is almost identical to the ENnies process? Did you ever bother to find out? Now granted, the "ceremony" (or whatever the heck they called it) was laughable at best. But as mentioned above, it was a last minute thing done by GAMA, not the Academy - who were responsible for the awards themselves.

(And Year's Best d20 doesn't judge products, it judges individual pieces of material. It's got nothing to do with the ENnies or the Origin Awards.)

Different scale, same thing. It is YOU setting yourself up as the judge of other people's work.

So... you about that Academy Chair nomination?????

 

[Michael Morris]

Interesting thread - oh well, back to writing the program that counts the votes.

BTW, voting will work a different way this year than the prior 2 years. I don't know the fancy terminology for it, but basically it will be a run off system.

For each category you have one less ballots as there are candidates. You cast your choice for the winner on the first ballot. If you wish, you cast your second choice for a winner on the second ballot, third choice for a winner on the third and so on. If you don't feel a product deserves to win, don't vote for it at all.

When the computer counts ballots, it will be looking for a clear majority (over 50%) among ballots cast before declaring a win. On the first round it only considers the first round ballots. If there is no winner then the product that received the fewest votes is dropped out of the race, and the next round begins. First round ballots are counted in this round only if the candidate is still in the running, otherwise the second round ballot is used. If there still isn't a winner a third round is held.

Example - Product A, B, C, and D are up. You like products A and B but feel B is the best. You select B for your first ballot and A for your second.

On the first round product D is eliminated. Since you picked B for your first round and it's still in the running, on the second round the computer uses your first round ballot. Unfortunately B is dropped in the second round, leaving a runoff between A and C. On the third round your "second round" ballot is counted and helps push A over the top for the win.​

In this system there's nothing to gain by trying to give a product a "low rating" as in years past, but if you want to rank the products you can. Note that in this system the worst you can do to a product you don't like is simply abstain casting a ballot. If you cast only a single ballot and your candidate is elminated the computer simply doesn't count any empty ballots.

(If I've paraphrased this system wrong Denise, let me know immediately - as the guy writing the code I need to concise understand how it is to work or else I can't get the computer to execute as expected).

EDIT: The reason there is one less ballot then there are candidates is because there must be at least 2 candidates in each round. With 5 candidates there would be 5 candidates in the first round, 4 in the second, 3 in the third and 2 in the fourth. If there isn't a clear majority after the 4th round, there is a glitch in the software or it's a perfect tie. That would be interesting to see, but unlikely.

 

[Crothian]

Was the apology as public as your original remarks that so infuriated the judges?

Yes, it was. The various judges had a variety of different reactions to that last year. Frankly, speaking only for me, I've completely put it behind me. People are intitled to their opinions and its good to hear the good with the bad; only way we can improve.

 

[Rasyr]

Micheal_Morrus - I really that voting schema. I think that it is very nice and very elegant.

A question though, the software records the actual final rankings of each product in each category, correct? (Just want to make sure I understand correctly.

Crothian - Apparently, I missed that, so my apologies to Monte for intimating that he never apologized.

 

[Michael Morris]

Micheal_Morrus - I really that voting schema. I think that it is very nice and very elegant.

A question though, the software records the actual final rankings of each product in each category, correct? (Just want to make sure I understand correctly).

It records the votes and makes the calculations when requested to do so by the appropriate persons, reporting the results.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Here's a quick guide to keeping this thread open:

1) No belligerent behavior. Don't call other people out for some kind of rhetorical battle royale, please.

2) Don't put words into other peoples' mouths. Also, please don't ascribe motive for others' actions.

3) When one person acts the fool and breaks rules 1) and 2) allow them to look the fool, rather than breaking 1) and 2) yourself and joining him or her.

Overall, let civility rule. Thanks!

 

[Vocenoctum]

However, least year after the ENnies, a few companies did complain because they felt that they could not use the awards as a marketing tool because the awards were given past the "3 month window"/life-cycle of their products. That was a large issue for some publishers.

I think a part of the complaints over using the Ennies as marketing, was due to the publishers footing some of the cost. Cost/Benefit was an issue, not simply "we don't want an award we can't publicize effectively".

 

[JoeGKushner]

Awww.. Gee thanks... That makes me feel so warm and tingly....

Maybe I am misremembering what you actually said, and if I did it was unintentional. However, that WAS the impression that I got from your comments. (and remember, that this is from a year ago, so memory is likely to be hazy a little bit.

Normally I keep out of the old celebs duking it out, but... unless I'm aboslutely positive about what someone said or wrote (and even that becomes a problem as certain individuals now go back and edit their blogs/logs/etc... in the real world and role playing community), I'd never bother to mention it. If it's hazy, don't quote it.