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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 3028467" data-attributes="member: 177">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.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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />    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.</blockquote>

Verification