Zachary Houghton resigns as an ENnies judge

[justanobody]

Imagine a billboard poster for a film.

King Kong

A wonderfully entertaining and scary tale - New York Times



Would you say that the NYT was involved in some way with the film? or because the critic liked it he shouldn't be able to judge it along with the other films released that year? Or would you say both? Seems like a strange argument to me.

Also wasn't Epic released before and this product was a 'tidy-up' or collection of stuff previously found elsewhere? Not sure, but i seem to recal something along those lines.

Did the film include the scene with him climbing the Empire State Building?

Does the state/city of New York profit from the film proceeds in any way?

Does the critic of NYT profit directly from ticket/DVD/merchandising sales of the film?

As long as the critic doesn't profit the other points are really moot, but it could be said that even the critic profits if the city/state profits in any way as the revenue from the movie being made in New York could help prevent tax hikes for that city/state.

I don't believe any movie critic especially after the idiot who review Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within claiming not only did he not like or play the video games, but then went to say that the movie was just like the video games. He shot himself in the foot with that one.

I think the most direct point would be does the critic get anything directly from a positive review? If he does, then it would be a conflict of interest or breach of ethics or whatever. Indirect profit form a review of something is harder to prove in most cases.

I neve really cared or knew about the ENnies prior to this thread, but like after finding the webbies and watching them every year, I think I will have to start watching the ENnies to see what they are all about.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I'm amazed that so few people realize that the judge everyone is claiming to have tried to change the submission date was NOT trying something underhanded. Look at the logic in his statement:

What was suggested was (IMO) to simply alter the posted dates for last year, so that all material now showed the date as eligible where it didn't before. That is dishonest and a cover up. It was not implemented, so it's nothing huge in regards to the Ennies, but that's what it looks like to me.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Imagine a billboard poster for a film.

King Kong

A wonderfully entertaining and scary tale - New York Times



Would you say that the NYT was involved in some way with the film? or because the critic liked it he shouldn't be able to judge it along with the other films released that year? Or would you say both? Seems like a strange argument to me.

The difference is, they wouldn't normally hire a reviewer to judge a competition. It's like a jury, you want them to come in on an even playing field and learn about the stuff through the competition.

Of course, the Ennies are not a, er... "real" competition. It's a community niche award that isn't even universally accepted. The nature of the community inflates it's importance.

 

[CaptainChaos]

I see no other proof of "lies" or anything that could, barring wishful thinking or creative exagerration, be offered as proof of a "lie". What I do see is somebody with a long-standing, openly admittted, resentment against this site exploting the situation to promote the personal blog of a long since banned user who, himself, has a long-standing, openly admitted, resentment against this site that stems directly from aformentioned banning.

Exactly. The Pund-tard and his delusions are funny enough. That he actually has people who agree and parrot his nonsense is simply hilarious. That Zachary would associate himself with such people speaks volumes about his judgment.

 

[El Mahdi]

For comparison I did some research on the Academy Awards, just to provide some contrast for the ENNies. I'm not saying that the ENNies are as big as the Academy Awards, but for the small world of gaming, and those who are involved in it and fans of it, I think it's just as big a thing for us (if maybe a bit less formal and irreverent). Although, I feel that the ENNies are much more fan oriented than the Oscars, and probably don't take itself as seriously as the Academy Awards do.

AMPAS (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences):
Members are chosen by nomination from current members of the Academy. They must be nominated by at least two current members of the Academy from their specific category (writers, actors, directors, etc). There are 15 categories plus a category of "Members at Large". The "Members at Large" do not fall within the other 15 categories (such as actors, directors, etc.) but are people who have contributed to the Movie industry. These can include (and have included) Lawyers and Critics (newspaper critics and television critics). However the names of members are not released. Those who have been nominated are sometimes released, but not always, and very few former members have been identified. The ones who are known are mostly just the original members and other "historical" relevent members. There are nearly 6,000 members (or more) at any given time. Movies to be considered are submitted by movie companies, and the members of the Academy vote on, and thereby choose, which movies, actors, etc. win the awards.

Comments: The Academy is made up of members who have acted in movies, directed movies, written movies, and have friends in said movies. They have endorsed movies, and even spent money on movies. They very much could even vote for their own movies. However, since the Academy has absolutely no transparency, who is voting and what they voted for will never be known outside of the Academy. However, the fact that there are over 6,000 voting members would probably mitigate any votes based on individual favoritism.


The ENNies:
The judges for the ENNies are chosen by votes cast by fans of the gaming industry. Members of the ENNies can be fans, writers, publishers, and critics, and bring their own preferences with them, but again they are chosen by the fans. Unlike the Academy, ENNies Judges do not vote on who wins, they decide the nominees and fans do the voting. The Judges and Staff of the ENNies are known and can be contacted by email, or discoursed with on any of the RPG forums, very unlike the Academy.

Comments: The ENNies are extraordinarily more transparent than the Oscars. The ENNies could even be said to be extraordinarily more fair than the Oscars since Judges and Winners are picked by Fan votes, not insiders fiat. If even the Academy Awards can't find a way to eliminate subjectivity and Judge preference/prejudice, I would say it's nigh impossible to expect the ENNies to attempt that very thing. Humans are just not capable of pure objectiveness. To expect this is to expect the impossible.


The only real problem I see, is that due to the ENNies normal transparency, Zachs posts, and his posting of emails, makes it appear that the ENNies were hiding something. But once the ENNies Staff and Judges responded to and explained what happened (there side of the story), I thought it became obvious they weren't hiding anything. I do feel that they made some minor mistakes, and compounded the impact of those mistakes with probably not the best management and PR responses. However, nothing that has been revealed, whether posts or emails, after hearing both sides of this, has convinced me that any intentional impropriety took place. The evidence just isn't there to support such allegations.

However, could the ENNies be improved with some better PR? IMO, without a doubt.

Will the ENNies continue to improve and learn from their mistakes? I have no doubt they will. They appear to have already taken steps to avoid such mistakes in the future.

Do I feel that the best products were awarded in the last ENNies Awards? Absolutely Yes, because WE picked them.

Do I feel that the "ENNies Award Winner" tag on products is tainted or worthless? No, these products deserved to win, and are the best of their field because WE said so.


After everything posted in this thread I don't think anymore, that the ENNies problems are due to a lack of transparency, but more due to PR and false allegations. I am looking forward to next years ENNies. I'm sure they'll be fair and exciting (hopefully I can make it to GenCon some year and see them for myself).

 

[Umbran]

That Zachary would associate himself with such people speaks volumes about his judgment.

That is quite enough of impugning the character of individuals, thank you.

This debate should be held to the same standards as we try to hold elsewhere - that means you don't get to insult someone in order to try to make their arguments less strong.

This goes for everyone - address the content of the position, do not get personal. If you feel a need, please discuss what is appropriate with a moderator. Our addresses are at a post stickied to the top of the Meta forum.

 

[El Mahdi]

The difference is, they wouldn't normally hire a reviewer to judge a competition. It's like a jury, you want them to come in on an even playing field and learn about the stuff through the competition. . .

Actually that's not true, reviewers and critics do get chosen as judges for competitions. They are usually considered "experts" at seperating the best from the worst. It's actually unlike a jury in that you usually want experts in, or at least people knowledgeable about, the competitions subject. Watch any reality show and it's very obvious. Cooking competitions are usually judged by cooks and food critics. Music competitions are usually judged by music artists, producers, and reviewers/critics. It's actually uncommon for someone that knows nothing about a competition to be involved as a judge (Americas Got Talent and Simon Cowell of Idol being the exceptions to the rule). ;-)

 

[Settembrini]

1. The plan was in place to announce the mistake and own up to it as soon as a PR director was put in place. Zachary jumped the gun ...

You know what?

I appreciate you take my concerns seriously, and answered thusly.
But really, read the sentence yourself?

What yould YOU think, if you weren´t involved?
Say, a politician has done something improper, someone "blows the whistle", and he says: "I wanted to tell it anyway!"

Wouldn´t you roll your eyes?

But that´s just appearances, and you could be right that Zach acted prematurely, and everything would have been fine had he waited.

But, as a fan, voter & customer I have severe doubts about it. These doubts stem from two sources:

1) my personal feeling, built upon several online incidents, that there´s a core group of popular people on ENworld and CM that...well, let´s say they are like old boys. That´s the nicest I can put what I think of this group. And 95% of all people involved with the ENnies come from this group, it seems. Oh, and even if they aren´t elected or anything, they still get access to vital and important information, as I understand at dinners and such. Thusly I think the old boys would rather cover something up "for the greater good". The style of posting in the "evidence" section supports this, as well as shows (to me) a certain contempt for fans & authors ("kiddie table" etc.")

2) the history that is unveiled. The history of how former mistakes have been handled (link-submissions, non-reviewed entries).

See, we can, and mostly should, not discuss 1), it´s pointless, but I wanted to be as open as possible.
But 2) remains strong, so please ask yourselves the question:

Have former process mistakes been made public?

And if you add that to the "appearances" I treid to explain up-post, what would you as a non-involved person think?

Exactly:

[Clique] + former mistakes have been covered up to this day (and at least in one instance someone is proud of it!) + before Zach went public nothing was said.

I do not pretend I actually KNOW what is correct. But I damn sure know what it smells like.

So, there you have it, and I can assure you that´s how a number people will think. Take care, and I hope for us all the ENnies will come out stronger & with better communication in all directions out of it.

 

[Qualidar]

How is it that this "clique" gets voted in by the entirety of the posters of ENWorld, RPGnet, and other, smaller, sites?

They must be very popular.

I understand you don't feel you belong. But people not liking you doesn't impair their ability to judge RPG products. From the flip side, that feeling might be impairing your ability to judge those people fairly.

 

[billd91]

1) my personal feeling, built upon several online incidents, that there´s a core group of popular people on ENworld and CM that...well, let´s say they are like old boys. That´s the nicest I can put what I think of this group. And 95% of all people involved with the ENnies come from this group, it seems. Oh, and even if they aren´t elected or anything, they still get access to vital and important information, as I understand at dinners and such. Thusly I think the old boys would rather cover something up "for the greater good". The style of posting in the "evidence" section supports this, as well as shows (to me) a certain contempt for fans & authors ("kiddie table" etc.")

There are actually reasons they are like "old boys" and have a fair amount of influence over the ENnies that have nothing to do with being cliquish. They've been active a long time on these boards (less so on ENworld these days), people have seen them in a lot of discussions, and they put themselves forward as judge nominees. The very fact that they are as active as they are will draw attention, particularly from voters who don't know any of the rest of us from Adam. A familiar name, whom you may have agreed with in a discussion or two, will draw the votes for ENnies judge like a car wreck draws lawyers.

So what if they actively go around to various regional conventions to meet each other and chat, go to dinner, all as friends [and sometimes as enemies as far as I can tell]? They're very active gamers.
Is CM a cliquish board? Yes it is. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting an inside joke, quip, aside, or someone bringing up behavior from another thread that may be long done over there. But that's the nature of most boards, whether it's a clique here, on CM, or on Nisarg's board.