Zachary Houghton resigns as an ENnies judge

[reveal]

Interesting read. I think Zach did a great job last year keeping people informed on the process.

RPG Blog II: My Resignation From The ENnies: An Explanation

My Resignation From The ENnies: An Explanation

The thought this year, among certain members of the ENnies, was that the categories of Best Podcast and Best Electronic Product should no longer need to send in a CD, but rather could more conveniently send a link to their product. The hope was that this would make the awards more accessible, not only podcasters, fan sites, and shoestring-budget pdf-only companies. It was also hoped that this would stimulate international submissions by bypassing the postage/customs headache that mailing from overseas could be.

You see, the ENnies requires each publisher to send 5 copies of their work (one to each judge), and then a 6th as a backup to the ENnies. If this book isn't used due to a missing judge copy or somesuch, then it is auctioned off, to support the various expenses the ENnies incur--operating costs, awards, that sort of thing. All well and good, yes?

The proposal was this--open Best Podcast and Best Electronic Product (and Best Fansite, of course) to link submissions, meaning unlike the prior rules, they could just fill out the submission form and link to their product. Since the other categories remained in the domain of deadtree products, this would open up two or three categories that would likely benefit most from this change without harming the financial model of the ENnies. In my opinion, it was a way to grow the awards in terms of fan/podcaster, pdf-only publisher, small press/indie, and international participation.

But it clearly is not to be. The ENnies feel that if you submit via link, you should pay an unprecedented submission fee to support the awards. In other words, they are asking you to pay them to consider your product's quality for the award. This donation, as proposed would go mainly to the ENnies, with a percentage going to each judge. Several individuals also wanted this as another "barrier" to the awards process, one of them going so far as to worry "we'll get tons of ill-considered crap that isn't worth the time to download". Hardly the right attitude for a judge, I'd say.

I will tell you right now, I will not accept one red cent of that money. I'm not saying this because I want a pat on the back, I just want you to know where I stand, as I always promised I'd be direct with you. I disapprove of this measure entirely, and find it to be a move in the wrong direction for the openness and accessibility of the awards. Instead of making a move that in no way hurt the ENnies but instead possibly improved awards participation, ease, and lowering cost for the entrants, they chose to go with a measure that provided a new income source for the awards, but that would do nothing to grow the awards in any sense. Bear in mind, this is despite the ENnies allowing several last-minute "usual suspect" and much-vaunted companies to submit via link at the very end of the submission period last year (for no charge, of course)! I'm not sure where this will lead, or what impact it will have. But at least you'll know where I stood.

I am, in a word, disillusioned with the ENnies. I am disillusioned with this, I am disillusioned with the attitude shown towards podcasters and fan products, and I am disillusioned with the purposeful lack of transparency in the awards. I am disappointed in the inconsistency shown on treatment of publishers and in dealing with technical issues.

I was especially angered and extremely disappointed when it was suggested that we retroactively change the submission cutoff dates for Book of Experimental Might 2 so that it would go undiscovered that it was accidentally ineligible for the awards period in question. I feel that judges should not be paid, but should be satisfied with the honor of being chosen to evaluate so much hard work (and all the books they receive on top of that). We have been entrusted to give every product a fair evaluation--there should be no bias or disgust at a product's chosen medium.

I don't feel any of this is in the spirit of making the awards transparent and more open. The air of prediliction towards certain favorites and an insular, incestuous culture for the awards themselves is a cancer which, if left untreated, will damage the awards' relevancy and standing.

With that in mind, and because I will not be a further party to matters I do not feel are right, I have suggested the ENnies contact alternate judge Jeramy Ware. I will work to ensure he receives all materials he needs to do the best job he can. In short, the ENnies need to adapt further to recognize both the growing shape and form of the gaming community. As I find it impossible to affect that change in this current situation, I can no longer support the ENnies. I am sorry for the inconvenience, and I am sorry I could not be a better voice and representative for those who elected me. Thank you.

 

[Runestar]

No offense, but who even takes the Ennies seriously to begin with?

Quoted from another website.

By Meg (formerly WizO Autumn).

This is purely about the ENnies Awards-- "The" awards in the gaming industry.

Drama, controversy and conspiracy abound.

Some history:

This year there was a category for Podcasts. We entered as did at least 8 other podcasts (probably more, but that's what we know).

When the nominations came out, there were 2 podcasts listed in the "Best Fan Product" category along with 3 websites.

The Podcast category was shafted and instead combined with a category that didn't accurately represent the entries.

Why? The ENnies said that there weren't enough entries in "one or more" of the categories then went on to say if a category had less than 10 entries they would combine with another category regardless of how many entries that one got.

Podcasts got enough entries (9 just on the RPG Podcast list that admitted to it)- the website category didn't get enough, and yet, of the 5 nominees, 3 were websites. 1 was a website that had some product on it and hadn't been updated in months.

There was scuttlebutt about the submission process for Podcasts- we had to choose 5 shows before April 30th and put on a CD and mail to 6 different addresses. Some drama ensued with the podcaster group saying it was archaic and "why should I leave my carbon footprint" blah blah. It was just bitching as far as I was concerned. No one who entered had any problem with making a CD.

Then there were some big ass threads on ENWorld about the issue and pages on "what can we do to get more podcasts to enter??"-- ! There WERE enough podcasts, it was the friggin' website category that didn't have enough because there were no rules listed anywhere on how to enter a website! Change the focus- this had nothing to do with podcasts.

This comes a year after Fear the Boot was forced to withdraw from the podcast category for hinting on their show that if someone as determined, there was no way they could enforce the "1 vote per person". It was an off-handed joke and the ENnies went nuts and had a totally lame reaction.

And now they are thinking of instituting a fee for entering? For JUST the podcast category? This isn't everyone paying this fee- just podcasters. When again, they weren't the problem in the first place.

But whatever- that's just podcasts.

Let's look at the books- the meat of the ENnies.

There are a panel of judges that select from the entries who is going to be nominated and then those nominees are put up to a vote by the public.

Listen to our ENnies Lightning Round reviews here for more info:
ReviewSode #8: Ennies Lightning Round! | Brilliant Gameologists

First of all, total crap products made it through. I did a full review of the writing category and honestly have no idea where the judges were coming from. 1 product just simply didn't belong- at ALL- and the one who won, Changeling the Lost, had some of the writing I've ever seen in a book. I've seen 10x better in Indie Press, Kinko copied books.

Then, Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might II: Bloody, Bold, and Resolute not only was nominated, but won for best online product. The cutoff date for all entries was April 30, 2008. As in everything clearly had to be created before that. Our podcast didn't even get good until after that point, so I had to choose between lesser quality shows to ensure we made that cutoff. The Book of Experimental Might came out on May 5, 2008 ("This item was added to our menu on 05/05/2008 00:14:10." . And the judges not only knew, but tried to just sweep it under the rug.

Then- I have a lot of problems with the blatant favoritism by the judges. I pick on Zachary the First but only because he is the one who blogged the ENnies and was the most public-- I only assume all the judges had backroom things going on as well.

Last September, Zachary blogged that his favorite podcast was Animalcast. And low and behold, guess which one got nominated! In comparison with other gaming podcasts, Animalcast has a lot wrong with it and just isn't nearly the quality of many other podcasts- audio or content. A true critical, objective analysis would not have placed it in the top of all submissions.

And then another book which we were just confounded by as a nomination- Epic Role Playing- wasn't in the same class as the other nominees. It seemed like a good start, but very amateurish. But low and behold, turn the book over and guess who one of the accolades printed on the back is from? Yep, Zachary the First, which means he saw it before it was released, already favored it, and then "judged" it?

And then the just blatant, subtle claims from other judges admitting that there is no way they could be objective.

The award system needs a major overhaul. I can't imagine any serious endeavor being handled like this and surviving.

I have hopes for the ENnies-- I hope they improve. They need to if they are going to be taken seriously.

There are a lot of things apparently wrong with it, and admission fees appear to be the least of them...

 

[wedgeski]

I do not know all the facts of this, but I will say the following.

I'm behind the notion of barriers to entry, in terms of submitting a CD of your best episode. The alternative is a deluge of crap that podcasters will submit simply because they "may as well". This is a recipe for disaster. The reality is that there are no serious contenders for the best podcast out there, IMO, that could possibly claim not to be able to afford the launch of six envelopes with 6 CD-R's in them. The argument is as spurious as ever.

Secondly, I can only agree with Runestar's sentiment that some people are taking this way too seriously for their own good.

 

[Crothian]

No offense, but who even takes the Ennies seriously to begin with?

There are a lot of things apparently wrong with it, and admission fees appear to be the least of them...

Like all awards some people take them seriously and some people don't. Not everything in that quoted post was accurate though for instance a small error is that only Zach was the only one blogging about the ENnies. At the very least I was also doing that. Mistakes did happen and each year the ENnies regroup and try to find a way to decrease the chances of mistakes.

 

[Morrus]

No offense, but who even takes the Ennies seriously to begin with?

Quoted from another website.



There are a lot of things apparently wrong with it, and admission fees appear to be the least of them...

Someone disagrees with the nominations, and thinks judges shouldn't nominate their favourites? Should they be nominating products they don't like?

Eh, much ado about nothing. No new policies have been implemented. If they had, they'd have been announced by Denise (who happens to be away on holiday at present).

 

[Berandor]

I for one applaud Zachary the First for not only being very forthcoming about the proceedings last year but also for now leaving the EnNies on a decision he cannot subscribe to. Well played. I think my vote for him was well-placed.

 

[Qualidar]

quoted from another website.

By Meg (formerly WizO Autumn)...

And then the just blatant, subtle claims from other judges admitting that there is no way they could be objective.

Apparently Meg doesn't understand that the process isn't objective: it's subjective. Their job is to nominate what they like. Her not agreeing with them doesn't make their choices wrong.

 

[Treebore]

I only take the nomination part of the ENnies seriously. In the years where I bought everything I know the judges definitely nominated the best products available in the given categories, I bought and read, and often used, those same products.

The actual awards are nothing more than a popularity contest. So I personally pay them no attention, unless a product I liked won. Then I go to the respective companies web site and congratulate them on their win.

As for the podcasts, I went and listened to all of those nominated this past year. They were entertaining, but largely every single one of them had "amateurish" issues, usually bad sound quality, interviewers who mumbled, and were still several steps from what I would call professionally polished.

Now there was one Podcast nominee where I did go to more recent podcasts, and they were definitely improving. The sound wasn't all over the place, the questions and answers were easy to hear, etc... and definitely getting closer to sounding professional.


As for "Favoritism" judging, I doubt it. The good stuff is what gets nominated. Good stuff by default tends to be "favorites". It being good is why it becomes a favorite.

Plus we need to remember the conditions under which these products are judged. They are read. Usually quickly. The judges have far, far from enough time to read and play with these products. They are doing quick and dirty reviews so they can judge them against other products.

They also game during this period, hopefully. I hope they don't have to give up their gaming in order to have time to do the judging. Some of these products will (hopefully) get used during those games. So these judges get to see some things in actual play, but not the vast majority of what they have to judge. This also creates a problem.

So we just have to understand, and accept, that the ENnies Judging is largely a glorified review process that is then turned over to the general on line community for the "Popular Vote", and winners are determined.

So until someone can come up with a system that works better, the ENnies is the best we have available.

As for Podcasts paying a fee, yes they should. Every other print publisher is paying a fee, the 6 books they donate to the process. Podcasters think they should get to submit at no cost to themselves at all? Then accuse the ENnies fo being unfair? Who's demanding the free ride?

If Podacsters are really concerned about fairness then they should be happy to pay some kind of fee, White Wolf, for an example, lost out on the sales of 6 books for Changling alone to be judged. Goodman Games lost out on 6 copies of CAstle White Rock ( a $100 product!!).

Pay up Podcasters, its only fair to the others that you have a cost as well.

 

[davethegame]

Pay up Podcasters, its only fair to the others that you have a cost as well.

It might not be quite so diplomatic of me to weigh in here because I have some conflicting issues in the whole matter, but I've got to say this:

Bloggers and podcasters, as a whole, do it because we love it. There are some pockets of professionals who actively make money and have budgets to do advertising and whatnot, but the majority of us spend our time and effort to entertain people for free. We do it because we love games and we love talking about games. Clearly, the Ennies consider them "fan products" and not professional endeavors.

So basically, what is being asked is for people who already spend a lot of time and effort giving away things for free and never recouping the costs to go ahead and spend even more time and money to submit their work on CDs, mainly to gain recognition. Though I'm sure there is a boost in readership and any ad revenue, I would be willing to guess it's not huge.

I was infuriated and then heartbroken to see the "Fan Product" category last year. Podcasts, websites, and a PDF adventure all lumped in together. Not only are those things incomparable, the ones that did make it were in some cases baffling. The honorable mention website hadn't been updated in quite some time, and I know for a fact that there were other entrants who showed a higher standard of quality and were still being regularly updated, but didn't make it past the nomination phase.

(Thankfully, the site that won the award is "one of ours" so that made me feel a bit better )

From what I hear now, it looks like that situation is going to change, which is quite a shame. I know I'm not objective at this at all, but running the new RPG Bloggers Network, there are TONS of quality sites out there, and this next year could be quite big for RPG websites. Yet from Zach's comments, it seems like it'll be a messed up category again, with the same (or worse) problems as last year. We'd love to get recognized for our efforts in something as big as the Ennies, as I'm sure our podcasting brethren would, but if the process is onerous it's not going to make anyone in those spheres happy.

I have the utmost respect for the organizers and judges involved in the process and the time it takes. Awards are a really tough thing to tackle, as you're always going to have complaints about the way things are run, people's assessment of the products that do make it, etc. That's not an easy job any way you slice it. But I think it's important to take a long hard look at how things are being run to make as many of those with stakes in the awards happy as you can, from the judges to the possible entrants. Clearly even those I would consider "insiders" are having some issues, and so it looks like something should be done.

Alright, I'm done

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Bloggers and podcasters, as a whole, do it because we love it.

This is true of the vast majority of print publishers, too.