Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Conaill" data-source="post: 2637391" data-attributes="member: 1264">I agree there are some very clear parallels -&nbsp; I just disagree with you on where those parallels lie.At the Oscars, the voting is done by 6000+ members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which is a very broad group of people with a direct interest in the movie industry. I think that group of people would be more analogous to the ENWorld (and now expanded beyond ENWorld) voting public. I don't really care to know how all those thousands of Academy members have voted on the past, nor do I care how all the hundreds (thousands?) of individual roleplaying fans have voted on the Ennie nominees.To really have an analogous situation, you'd have to first select a group of judges, who then nominate a shortlist of movies to be voted on by the full membership. Now, if *that* body of judges that preselects the nominees were a &quot;faceless entity&quot;, don't you think that would seriosuly undermine the integrity of the process? It might work fine if they're all movie critics with very public track records - i.e. ENWorld reviewers - but I'm not sure we would want to *require* all the judges to be ENWorld reviewers.In the end, this is really an issue of representative &quot;governmment&quot;. We want our congress members to *represent* our own preferences of how our society should be run, and therefore we demand insight in how they have voted in the past on issues of interest to us. Sure, if they also happen to be reporters, we could read their opinion pieces on individual issues. But I don't think we should require our politicians to also be prolific writers of opinion pieces, nor do I think we should ask the voters to read through all those opinion pieces. A concise statement of their previous voting record shoudl speak for itself, and would be sufficient in most cases...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Conaill, post: 2637391, member: 1264"] I agree there are some very clear parallels - I just disagree with you on where those parallels lie. At the Oscars, the voting is done by 6000+ members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which is a very broad group of people with a direct interest in the movie industry. I think that group of people would be more analogous to the ENWorld (and now expanded beyond ENWorld) voting public. I don't really care to know how all those thousands of Academy members have voted on the past, nor do I care how all the hundreds (thousands?) of individual roleplaying fans have voted on the Ennie nominees. To really have an analogous situation, you'd have to first select a group of judges, who then nominate a shortlist of movies to be voted on by the full membership. Now, if *that* body of judges that preselects the nominees were a "faceless entity", don't you think that would seriosuly undermine the integrity of the process? It might work fine if they're all movie critics with very public track records - i.e. ENWorld reviewers - but I'm not sure we would want to *require* all the judges to be ENWorld reviewers. In the end, this is really an issue of representative "governmment". We want our congress members to *represent* our own preferences of how our society should be run, and therefore we demand insight in how they have voted in the past on issues of interest to us. Sure, if they also happen to be reporters, we could read their opinion pieces on individual issues. But I don't think we should require our politicians to also be prolific writers of opinion pieces, nor do I think we should ask the voters to read through all those opinion pieces. A concise statement of their previous voting record shoudl speak for itself, and would be sufficient in most cases... [/QUOTE]

Verification