Opening can o' worms

[The_Universe]

That's what voting does. No one is calling into question the abilities or jobs of past members, at least I haven't seen that here. There are some situations that exist that do need to be addressed. There is the possibility that there could be some conflicts of interest perceived and some people are offering solutions. You said you don't perceive a problem, and that's fine, but others do so it is something worth addressing. You've said you don't have any solutions, and that's fine, but others do and that's something worth exploring. I do not know why you want to marginalize people's opinions on future policies for the ENnies and the abilities of anyone you don't think should be a member of the nominations committee but I wish you would stop doing that. It does not seem to be constuctive or in the spirit of the intent of this thread.

I actually did offer a solution - rather than attempting to make unorganized "negative votes," concerned voters should organize and campaign for a candidate, presumably outside the Enworld establishment, that they prefer.

 

[DaveMage]

I almost get the impression that metaphorically, the ENnies has grown to be the teenager about to leave for college and EN World is the protective parent who isn't quite ready to let him go off on his own. There is a strong sense of pride with the awards, but an equally strong undercurrent of possessiveness ala "These are our awards. How dare you try to change them." Neither is a bad thing. But both can cloud a person's judgment and prevent him or her from seeing that certain changes do need to be made if the award is going to grow and gain the respect of the gaming audience at large (and not just the online EN World crowd).

Why should it grow to be any more than it is right now?

Honestly, who would benefit? How?

As you mentioned, Adkison has already put the breaks on expanding beyond RPGs, so is there really that much to gain by getting any bigger?

I'm not trying to be snarky - I'm really curious as to what people feel the ultimate potential of these awards actually is. I'm not seeing the benefit much beyond what they do already (which I think is a good job of recognizing RPG-related talent). Does anyone have data, for example, as to the current sales benefits to the award winners? How about Origins award winners? Any tangible benefit that's been shown with those? I'd like to know.

 

[Ghostwind]

The Origins awards have never really resulted in making an impact on sales. However, the Ennies do make an impact. Just ask anyone who has won an award how well they do the following day. I believe that nearly everyone will comment that it makes a positive effect (some cases huge). For example, Expeditious Retreat Press had a great Saturday with the sales of their 1-on-1 #6.66 adventure. The award brought it a lot of attention which equated to a sold out convention for them and that product.

In terms of a much larger picture, if the Ennies were to grow and increase their awareness beyond the 1/10% of the existing gaming population that frequents online communities and had the almost 30,000 attendees at Gen Con become of aware of the awards and grant it a measure of importance, just think what kind of positive effect that can have on a company's sales and profits for the convention.

Who benefits? Both the gamer who may not have known about the products nominated and the publisher who received the nomination and/or win. The greater the visibility, the greater the likelihood of having better sales.

 

[Mark]

To point out an example of something not so EN World related, a guy I know who was working the FanPro booth at GenCon told me that Shadowrun 4th Edition had a huge increase in sales due to their ENnies success (and he specifically asked me to pass that information along, so there it is). The ENnies are already bigger than EN World and Dextra is already dealing with them on that basis. I'd love to see these awards continue to be in existence for many, many years to come, and to continue to not only remain relevant but to grow and flourish. Having been around when the ENnies were started, and having been involved with their initial development, I admit that I have a personal interest in the ENnies.

 

[Umbran]

Nevertheless, I at last see the point that Mark was trying to make. Joking comments aside, I really don't see any way to solve this problem at the systemic level, even with some complex vote-weighing tabulation system (though that gets closer than the telepathic supercomputer ).

Having read a bit about the voting method, it really is leaning a bit towards the "intelligent supercomputer" line. The intent of the system is to preserve some of the voter's intent, even if their first choice is thoroughly beaten out of the competition. Choose your priorities wisely, and even if Noob loses, you can throw some weight behind Loob instead.

What needs to go along with this is a good piece describing the voting method and how the voter should approach their options. That should help a good deal.

 

[Umbran]

One or two "new blood" positions on the nominations committee would be a good idea; that is, one or two positions guarenteed to be filled by people who have never been on the nominations committee in previous years.

I used to think that forcing this might be a good idea, but since the current method has already been shown to introduce a new judge or two every year, I see no reason to force the issue. If it isn't broken, don't try to fix it.

Of course, we may see a new dynamic in the new judge sources and voting system. However, I think trying to predict which way folks will go, and trying to prevent specific outcomes would be a mistake. We don't know how people will react, so restrictions can have effects far different from what's intended.

Staff reviewers on the committee? I've never been comfortable with that idea.
We hear from them all year long. We know they all have some companies they don't care for and some who won't send them products.

Yes, but a non-reviewer is also probably going to have personal biases, but we won't know about them as well. Basically, you seem to advocating taking the devil we don't know in place of the devil we do.

Or, to turn it around - we want to choose a judge largely because we think they have good judgement, right? And their biases are judgement calls. Effectively, we are choosing judges for their biases! I want a judge that is biased for products I think are good

It's all about avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest, despite anyone's best intentions, and knowing that with (probably) 50,000 + other people to choose from we'll do just fine.

No, it isn't all about avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest. It is all about actually finding the best products and giving them honors. It is only when you fail to do accomplish that goal that the appearance of conflict of interest becomes an issue.

I agree that the number of folks out there who can do a good job of judging is large. But the pool of folks who won't do a good job, but who want to try, is potentially much larger, because the judging isn't easy. Artificially eliminating folks who hold certain positions means we have fewer known quantities to choose from, and the thing becomes a bigger crap shoot.

This becomes even more of an issue when we open the thing up to other sites - Let's say that we decide EN World Staff Reviewers are not allowed. Does RPG.net have equivalent people that we should also exclude? Because they have biases and conflicts of interest too. Trying to weed through the complications and the potential politics in trying to weed out exactly who on various sites should be excluded would be a nightmare...

So, don't. I suggest something far simpler - let folks who aren't affiliated with potential contestants be nominated by a simple system. Have them be clear and open about their affiliations. Give them a way to demonstrate their judgement for the public. Let the public decide what they want.

Because, in the end, restrictions on who can be a judge are an imposition of the opinions of the few upon the will of the many we are trying to have represent. We should attempt to minimize such impositions.

 

[DaveMage]

Who benefits? Both the gamer who may not have known about the products nominated and the publisher who received the nomination and/or win. The greater the visibility, the greater the likelihood of having better sales.

Thanks for the good info.

I guess the fear that I have is that once EN World "lets go" of the awards and they evolve into something bigger, is that they will turn into an award system where politics and other (what I might consider negative) outside influences begin to shape them, thus resulting in them eventually being declared irrevlevant. Right now there's a lot of volunteer work (albeit with some nominal compensation, such as a room at GenCon) that goes into making them successful. The EN World people behind the awards seem to be genuinely concerned with seeing them succeed. Should the awards "outgrow" EN World and fall into the hands of others, well, the question is, would others be as concerned about them?

Of course, having someone like Dextra running them helps a great bit, so it's entirely possible that someone else from EN World wouldn't be able to simply take the torch and run with it either.

 

[Psion]

Yes, but a non-reviewer is also probably going to have personal biases, but we won't know about them as well. Basically, you seem to advocating taking the devil we don't know in place of the devil we do.

Precisely.

Electing someone you feel will represent your tastes and needs well was the whole intent of the representative voting scheme, I thought. Electing inscrutible judges is not seeming like a plus here.

 

[Umbran]

I guess the fear that I have is that once EN World "lets go" of the awards and they evolve into something bigger, is that they will turn into an award system where politics and other (what I might consider negative) outside influences begin to shape them, thus resulting in them eventually being declared irrevlevant.

Well, do remember that there is an Ennies Board of Directors that sits over the entire thing. I've not seen any talk about letting go of seats on that board. So long as the board keeps an eye open, there's someone to steer us around outside forces.

I would think it best if everyone viewed this opening up as a bit experimental - there's no way to tell how well it'll work if nobody ever actually tries it, and nobody should get the idea that the current plan will end up as the final form. Try it this way once, see how it works, and use that to inform the future.

Of course, having someone like Dextra running them helps a great bit, so it's entirely possible that someone else from EN World wouldn't be able to simply take the torch and run with it either.

Any fan-organized endeavor is only as good as the people who volunteer to do the work.

 

[Mark]

No, it isn't all about avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest.

Yes, my policy suggestion is all about avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest.

It is all about actually finding the best products and giving them honors.

The function of this thread is to give suggestions to help Dextra and her closer councel craft the best possible policy for the functioning of the ENnies award program (including avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest). The setting of policy is about setting up a process that attracts the best candidates for membership on the nominations committee and decide on conditions for eligibility. The setting of policy is also about setting up a process that allows the community to choose the best, eligible nominations committee members. The setting of policy is also about setting up a process that allows the community to then vote on the selections from the nominations committee. That process culminates in the selection of the best products and giving them honors. There are many steps between.