Zachary Houghton resigns as an ENnies judge

[Crothian]

I believe (but I'm not going to assert as true) that the BG folks have established what they consider to be an objective, scientific approach to analysis of games in order to determine what makes them good or bad games. I do not believe that Meghan, Josh, or Zeke feel that their game analysis is opinion for this reason, and that judges should likewise establish this objective set of critera going forward.

Cheers,
Cam

If they want to post the methodology I'd be happy to look it over.

 

[Morrus]

The answer to "the judges should evaluate products the way that I do" is, simply, "run for election".

 

[Treebore]

1. To further clarify... I haven't heard anyone talk about the ethics of requiring a submission fee to people who make little or no profit from their intended submission.

2. Neither have I heard a response about a judge's name being listed on the back of a submitted work.

3. We have heard some replies about the submission deadline issue, but how long has it been since the awards? Exactly how long did you need to formulate an announcement of the mistake which was made... isn't that the kind of transparency you're trying to achieve?

1. There is no need for ethics. If they feel a fee is out of line they do not have to submit anything. Simple. Why is ethics even an issue? Its not like anyone is being forced to submit anything. Asking for a small nominal fee to help cover costs of the awards as well as be fair to the other publishers that actually submit hundreds of dollars of product is being fair. Letting someone not have to pay anything because their product is free is what isn't fair. EVERYONE else is at the very least submitting 6 copies of their printed works. That costs money. In the case of Goodman Games it was $600.00 in product.

So to be FAIR, I think paying a small fee of what? $10? Is very fair. I think crying that you have to actually give something that financially helps out the ENnies is a problem. Even so it is not. You don't like the fee, you don't like paying something, like everyone else does in some way, don't submit and don't pay. Simple. If you don't want to give up some kind of financial fee to the ENnies, do not participate.

I know of several times items were not submitted for the ENnies, or at least seriously considered not submitting to the ENnies, because of how valuable their product was. Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing. Every time they ended up submitting, because to be nominated alone is good advertising, and winning is even better.

2. We haven't even been told who this supposed judge is, so how can we know unless we happen to own every product submitted to the ENnies. Rest assured if there was a judge who had product in the submissions, they knew they were not supposed to be a judge, and they will likely be banned from judging ever again.

Look at the requirements for running for a judge, you are to have NOTHING in print that will be up for consideration during your Judging period. I believe there is even a time requirement since the last time you had anything published.

Plus we don't even know if this judge was just a play tester for the game, or an actual writer/contributor. Let alone if a judge was indeed even guilty of such a thing. It is possible that someone with an identical name was published. If we go by that standard I have several books in publication. I never wrote, contributed, or playtested them, but my name is on them. Does that mean I shouldn't run for being Judge?

3. As has been said, they didn't catch the error until after the products nomination was announced. Should they ban Malhavoc Press for submitting something not eligible? Should the judges be banned for "X" number of years for allowing such a mistake to get by? What exactly should they have done?

Doing their best to make sure it never happens again seems to be the most reasonable response to me. Its not like we can go back and re cast votes, etc... It is done.

If you can suggest a "fix" that would be fairer and more equitable to everyone please share!

 

[Crothian]

The answer to "the judges should evaluate products the way that I do" is, simply, "run for election".

If there is a good way to look at RPGs that we haven't seen we should at least look at it. There are many different approaches and I think it is unwise to dismiss someone's before hearing what it is.

 

[Crothian]

2. We haven't even been told who this supposed judge is

It was mentioned a page ago that it was Zach on the back of the Epic RPG. It was a quote taken from his blog on the back cover like movie advertisements sometimes do.

 

[Treebore]

It was mentioned a page ago that it was Zach on the back of the Epic RPG. It was a quote taken from his blog on the back cover like movie advertisements sometimes do.

OK, so a total non issue. Thanks! I definitely missed that post!

 

[Xath]

Thank you all for your concerns. The ENnie Awards were very disappointed to learn of Zachary Houghton's resignation through his blog post, especially over what seems to be a misunderstanding within a private discussion. We wish to express our regret that Mr. Houghton felt it necessary to withdraw from his post as judge, as he was a valued member of the ENnies panel in the 2008 season.

I would like to encourage anyone with concerns to please address them to our ENnies Public Relations Coordinator. Until such a time as a permanant PR Coordinator can be hired, I will be functioning in that capacity, in addition to my duties as a 2009 Judge. Any concerns can be addressed to gertiebarden (at) gmail (dot) com until such a time as an official ENnies account can be created. Any individuals wishing to volunteer as a member of the ENnies staff, whether as PR Coordinator or any of our other vacant positions, please contact Business Manager Denise Robinson through the ENnies website (The ENnie Awards- About the ENnies).

Please understand that although current and former ENnies staff members and judges may be participating in the online discourse, only official statements made by the Business Manager, Public Relations Coordinater or Owner are considered representative of the awards. As these staff members are also active members of the community, please understand that only those postings marked as official ENnies responses should be considered as such.

I will check this thread as often as I can, but for those with immediate concerns, the email address above is the most reliable method of contact.

Thank you,

Gertie Barden
ENnies Public Relations Coordinator

 

[Master of the Game]

Good. He's above reproach. I was proud to be his colleague the year we were judges. If anyone thinks Jeramy would tolerate the things you claim are going on: corruption, cronyism and bias, then they know nothing about this guy.

Totally off topic, but can I just say that if you ever want to feel good about yourself you should really get on fusangite's good side.

A whole lump of good ideas...

I don't know that I agree with your number 1, but I certainly support the idea behind it. I believe Morrus is right in that there needs to be a cut off, but maybe combing the the "fan products" categories isn't the best solution. Personally I'm a huge fan of podcasts and listen to several, and I think that, in reality the belong under Regalia if anything (other than their own category). Websites may as well.

The reasoning is simply that there are a lot of different types of podcasts, but very few are really judged on content. People listen to most (my belief) because they are entertaining. The fact that you learn something is, in a lot of cases, a pleasant side effect. The Sons of Kryos, as a random example, has really helped me to improve my game, but I'd say that 80% or more of the reason that I listen is that I really like those guys.

If others out there are like me, and I suspect they are, then that's Regalia. It adds to the enjoyment of our game without a direct impact on the rules or what have you.

So maybe the solution is to revisit the parenting system, but I don't really think that nominating a few products just because they were the only ones entered is a perfect solution.

That said, I really appreciate your points, and more importantly the way you made a convincing argument. Other than that one little thing, I'm sold.

 

[Master of the Game]

Also, in the interests of total disclosure, I should point out that I am now, officially, Zach's replacement. I don't do it out of some sense of accomplishment, because really, who wants to be the guy that got in because someone else stepped aside?

I do think it's important however to be honest about where my opinions are coming from. I just got official notice today, so regardless of how people may feel that this influences my posts I'll point out that up until the last one they were all made before I had been asked to step in. I will admit that I did know it was a possibility however.

Anywho, for those that want transparency I'll argue this much: I maintained a pretty thorough blog during my last term (2007). I'm pretty sure it was the first dedicated ENnies judging blog, and I was never asked to take down a single post or withhold any information.

So, take it for what it's worth, but I guess I'll be firing up the old blog again (Blogging the ENnies). I don't know if I warrant the "beyond reproach" title I have been so generously given, but I do my best and I'll absolutely be open with anything I feel that people should know.

I do admit right now though that I don't think that should include every off hand comment or thought someone puts on the table before it becomes official policy. I'd be glad to talk about real policy that has actually been made, but I think that the idea that every discussion should be made public would only stifle people who have good ideas that they're afraid to bring up.

Everyone should have the opportunity to float an idea by their friends and coworkers, no matter how good or bad, without opening it up to public derision. I think everyone has probably said something at one point or another that seemed stupid in hind sight, and I doubt you'd want weeks worth of debates or dozens of internet posts reminding you of it.

A person should be able to put something on the table and give others a chance to discuss it without fear of reprisal.

Now, if it becomes policy then yeah, let's complain about a stupid idea that sucks. I believe that the ENnies, like anything, can only be made better by openly discussing the way the rules, categories, or entries work. But complaining about something that never happened is counter-productive. If you hear that they are considering and you think it's a bad idea say so, maybe you will stop something before it becomes an issue, but it's not fair to vilify an idea like it's a done deal.

Has anyone actually paid such a fee yet?

Seriously, discuss your concerns. Obviously it has some effect if the judges are discussing ways to change it in light of the complaints with how it was handled last year. Don't be too upset yet that there haven't been changes that you like because if Zach's post doesn't tell you anything more then it obviously points out that they're at least thinking about it and taking peoples' concerns seriously.

The ENnies are a committee. These things take time and discussion, and ripping apart every bad idea that may have hit the table is only going to discourage the guy who has the right solution from putting it forward. Offer advise, please, and constructive criticism, but taking one person's criticism as gospel, especially without further commentary, is a dangerous path to tread.

 

[Xath]

That seems like a great approach Jeramy. I'm really looking forward to working with you.