Why the merger of two categories?

[Piratecat]

I'm pretty sure that opinions can be expressed without the accompaniment of a vast and unattractive outpouring of bile. I'm sure it comes as no surprise when I ask you to please do so in the future.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

We did not put in for the ENnies this year, as we thought that "another bite at the cherry" for our usual categories a bit excessive (however next year we hope to submit in perhaps another category altogether, we shall see).

Speaking from a very personal point of view, my experience of the ENnies has been great, a fun thing to be a part of and I appreciate the huge amount of effort it takes volunteers to co-ordinate and run it.

If we'd entered say, Yog Radio this year I would not have minded sending in six CDs, even intercontinental, certainly less effort than producing the shows.

The ENnies are a fun thing to be a part of and also I think provide a useful service. I've considered throwing my hat in the ring as a potential Judge nomination a couple of times, but keep getting disqualified.

In my opinion they're some of the best awards in the hobby, worth supporting if you can.

Just my two-pennth.

Paul

 

[reveal]

I think fusangite nailed it. Anyone can send in a link. So what you get is any Tom, Dick, or Harry sending in a link for their one podcast they've ever made on something to do with RPGs because they think it would be "cool" to get an ENnie. But the wouldn't really care if the didn't because all it took them was copying and pasting a link and clicking send. The judges would be obligated to listen to that podcast. I can imagine that causing an overabundance of really bad podcasts that are received and a huge feeling of wasted time on the part of the judges.

By changing the rules to force people to send in 6 CDs, it weeds out the "this would be cool" people and only those who truly care whether or not they earn an ENnie will send them in. The judges don't feel that they're wasting their time because they know that they are getting quality podcasts from those that think the ENnies are a truly worthwhile endeavor.

No matter how you want to rationalize it, no matter how much you don't like the changing of the rules, it all boils down to this: If you truly, truly cared about the ENnies, if you believe that winning an ENnie is an honor and something to be proud of, then you would have burned the CDs and sent them in. You would have done whatever was necessary to win it, within the rules of course, no matter how much you disagreed with the rules. If the only "principle" you're concerned about here is the fact that you have to put CDs into an envelope and spend a little money, then you have little room to complain. Honestly, that makes me think you're just cheap, not that you are sticking to some sort of "principle."

 

[Mark]

Frankly, the submission process for a digitally available product (and while I'm talking about podcasts, I'll include here as well PDF game products) is archaic (. . .) Why should I go through the process of burning CDs and mailing them, when I can send an email with download links customized for the submission process?

Because those are the rules of the awards.

This process was archaic in the past and only becomes moreso as time goes by. As a first year member of the nominations committee, I recall the obstacles to submission were set up to avoid individual nominations selection committee (NSC) members' computers from becoming overwhelmed by too many submissions by pdf publishers. It was an artificial barrier that could have been better handled and still could be, in my opinion.

For the future, regardless of how pdf (and other electronic submissions are handled) those who step up to become members of the NSC should expect to have their computer processing and storage limits strained to some degree. With the Adobe CS3 and Acrobat 9 now out, there will also likely be some great innovations in the way pdf are produced, all NSC members should be sure to have all of their software upgraded to the most current.

However, there should be a server or centralized storage location whence NSC members DL submissions for review. They would not even need to load up their harddrives if they wished not to do so. It is be greatly more green and responsible to have the cutting edge of the industry (that goes so far to reduce their footprint) not need to take a step backwards as part of an artificial barrier.

Plus, this awards process has always needed additional funds. So if you really want to create an economic constraint that simulates costs incurred by print publishers, then increase submission fees for electronic submissions to be commensurate with those of print publishers, vis-a-vis if some pub submits a 300 page pdf then figure the approximate media mail cost for 6 copies of a 300 page book and add it on top of the standard submission fee, dropping that additional revenue into the ENnies funding pool.

The process is not only archaic but environmentally unfriendly and completely missing an opportunity to help support the ENnies through an obvious revenue stream. It's time to change that.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

..increase submission fees for electronic submissions to be commensurate with those of print publishers, vis-a-vis if some pub submits a 300 page pdf then figure the approximate media mail cost for 6 copies of a 300 page book and add it on top of the standard submission fee, dropping that additional revenue into the ENnies funding pool.

I think that could be potential issue for 'Fan Produced / Non-commericial' electronic submssions. Then again 6x CD plus P&P could end up being $20-$30 anyway. That could go to the ENnies and not the CD manufacturer/Postal Service. Certainly an interesting idea.

 

[Dextra]

By the way, one of the reasons we had the CD format for submissions, beyond that of creating an artificial barrier to reduce a flood flippant entries, was to ensure that the customer service experience didn't influence the evaluation of the product.

For example, I was sent a free PDF link by a publisher. I went to download it from an Online Storefront. I had to sign up for an account at the OS, and my Internet crashed before I could download the product. The only time I can download big files in in the evening, and the next time I had the opportunity to download the file was two weeks later, by which time I'd forgotten my login. I requested my password be sent to me by the OS and never received it. If that had been a product under consideration for judging, it might not have ever been evaluated favourably.

I do like the concept of an entry fee for those not submitting physical product. The disposal of physical product is part of the income stream of the Awards and keeps them going. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask publishers and fan sites for an entry fee of, say, $20 + $5/additional product submitted beyond the first. I'm not saying this is a done deal, but it certainly bears consideration!

 

[dpmcalister]

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask publishers and fan sites for an entry fee of, say, $20 + $5/additional product submitted beyond the first. I'm not saying this is a done deal, but it certainly bears consideration!

Unfortunately, I think that is very unreasonable and will, IMHO, result in even fewer entries, not encourage them! I know I wouldn't take part in an awards setup if I had to pay to enter. Indeed, it would cheapen my opinion of them. Awards categories should be a broad spectrum of entries, not just those that can afford to take part.

 

[Mark]

By the way, one of the reasons we had the CD format for submissions, beyond that of creating an artificial barrier to reduce a flood flippant entries, was to ensure that the customer service experience didn't influence the evaluation of the product.

As I recall, that was not discussed the first year when the barrier was put into place (in fact, I believe here was a choice to send in CDs or to print it out and send in it). Nevertheless, I do not think it is difficult to separate that custserv experience any more than to not blame the postman if something does not show up right away (or at all). In truth, if there is a postal problem, it can takes weeks to recitfy, while a DL problem can be handled in hours or the next day. Your's is actually an argument in favor of removing the CDs barrier.

 

[DaveStebbins]

Unfortunately, I think that is very unreasonable and will, IMHO, result in even fewer entries, not encourage them! I know I wouldn't take part in an awards setup if I had to pay to enter. Indeed, it would cheapen my opinion of them. Awards categories should be a broad spectrum of entries, not just those that can afford to take part.

I feel differently. The ENnies are a huge and expensive volunteer undertaking. IMO, anything that makes it easier for the volunteers working on the ENnies, and easier to fund the ENnies, is a good thing.

I have to agree with reveal and fuangite, if someone wants to be considered for a professional award, even in a 'fan' category, they should not be looking for the easiest way out at the expense of the volunteers who will be judging them.

 

[Mark]

I have to agree with reveal and fuangite, if someone wants to be considered for a professional award, even in a 'fan' category, they should not be looking for the easiest way out at the expense of the volunteers who will be judging them.

Then you agree with me, as well, excepting that I do not agree with the nature of the hurdle in place that reveal and fusangite advocate. To sum up, fusangite and reveal support the barrier that costs the publisher/manufacturer/podcaster money and creates a physical submission (where none naturally exists) whereas my suggestion could cost the publisher/manufacturer/podcaster a like amount of money that would be channeled toward directly funding the ENnies program.