Zachary Houghton resigns as an ENnies judge

[Runestar]

What Morrus said....

Possible? Most certainly.

Probable?

Like has been said, the reason there are people doubting or even openly questioning the authenticity of the awards shows that in the very least, the decision making process does not come across to be as transparent and above-board as it ought to have been.

 

[Morrus]

Possible? Most certainly.

Probable?

Well, there's not much else I can say to you. The judges collectively voted for the products they thought were the best. You can believe me or not, but there's nought else I can say.

 

[The_Universe]

Just curious, is this due to employment outside of your role on the ENnies staff, or because of any conditional agreements with the ENnies themselves?

Is this typical for the members of the ENnies staff?

And, if this is typical for the ENnies staff, why was the percentage ever proposed and why is it even an issue (to the staff and to Zach)?

It has everything to do with my "real" job, and nothing to do with the ENnies. As Xath's post indicates, it's a simple fact for at least 2/5 of us. That said, even if that issue did not exist, I don't need the dollar. The ENnies do. Easy decision.

If I recall correctly, the judge payment idea was proposed by someone who was trying to do something nice for the judges, but I don't believe it arose from within the panel itself.

 

[Meghan]

The judges didn't just vote on their choices though. They argued, debated and convinced each other. If it was a blind vote that would be another thing entirely. But arguing and debating, there is a much higher chance that a product which isn't very good will get through, whereas if you had a panel of 12 or so qualified individuals who voted, if one was voting for their personal favorite regardless of how much it sucked, that vote wouldn't count.

Let's look at the Olympics. Or the Academy Awards. Or even a smaller award system like the Parsecs.

I also take strong offense to the notion that "they didn't choose what you like so you're upset." Not the case at all.

What I like and what is quality are not the same thing. I readily admit to liking stuff that isn't very good quality (I'm a sucker for the Twilight books, that should tell you something). And in the same regard, there are things I can appreciate for extremely high quality which I don't particularly like.

Aces and Eights was a fantastic book. Looking at it objectively, it had all the right pieces. It was unique, interesting, had a very interesting mechanic, and included great information. That being said, I will never play that game. I personally don't enjoy that style nor genre of RPG. But just because I don't like it shouldn't mean I can't appreciate its value to gaming.

The inverse is also true. Just because I like a game (again- full disclosure. I liked Rifts) doesn't mean I can't look at it objectively and compare it in a pool against a set rubric.

We do reviews now on our podcast- and reviewed all of the books in 4 of the categories of the ENnies. These reviews were not based on opinion- we set the criteria for review before we opened them. Some of the games we were familiar with and liked the game- but when we reviewed, we looked at it in a new light.

There were entries in the ENnies that simply did not belong. They didn't represent the category they were in and had nothing to offer that category. That's not saying I didn't like these books- that's saying that when you look at the RPG market they flat out just don't belong.

The judges favortism got in the way of them making an informed decision about a product which is to represent the industry.

That being said, if these awards are not for products to represent the industry, then by all means, continue in the manner upheld so far. I believe though that they can be more than a popularity contest. I would love to see quality products for each nomination (again- distinction between quality and what I personally like).

I think a few fairly simple adoptions of regulations will solve many of these problems and give more credibility to the award system.

 

[Crothian]

A judge should be impartial and let the products on the table sway their decision. If the nominations are just going to go to their favorites anyway, then 1) why have a submission process at all? and 2) they need to call themselves something other than judges. And if that is the case, then the process for electing judges should be changed.

Everyone has their favorites. Take a look at what games I currently play and you will find my favorites (Changeling the Dreaming, Buffy, and D&D). Okay, not a great example as all of the games I'm currently involved in are arguable out of print.

It's all about keeping an open mind though. Each year I've been a judge there are items I know ahead of time I like. Maybe I've bought them already and gotten to use them or really like what the publisher and either have done in the past. But also each year I see a game I did not have and perhaps had not even heard of and been blown away. There is so much gaming things out there no one can be expected to be familiar with it all. That is why we ask for submissions.

But the issue- once again- is that the blame keeps getting put on podcasts.

I am not placing blame. I would never blame anyone for not participating with the ENnies and I apologize if it looked like that was what I was saying. If there is any blame it falls on us for not seeing that we didn't have enough in some categories and contacting people asking them to submit.

 

[Morrus]

I also take strong offense to the notion that "they didn't choose what you like so you're upset." Not the case at all.

What I like and what is quality are not the same thing.

I have no idea where you pulled that quote from or why we're talking about what you "like", or why you're defining the difference between "what you like" and "quality". That's nothing to do with this conversation, interesting as it may be as a conversation in its own right.

We're talking about a difference of opinion: your opinion differs to the judges as to what should have been nominated. Fine. I'm sure thousands of peoples' does in thousands of different ways. But the fact that you disagree with the nominations doe snot by definition make them wrong, and any suggestion of such carries a strong implication of hubris.

Or worse, given that you say you were an entrant; that makes it sound like something else.

We do reviews now on our podcast- and reviewed all of the books in 4 of the categories of the ENnies. These reviews were not based on opinion- we set the criteria for review before we opened them. Some of the games we were familiar with and liked the game- but when we reviewed, we looked at it in a new light.

And that's very nice for you. But you're not the judges. The judges don't base their decisions on your reviews. They base them on the criteria, policies and other factors they describe in their election campaigns. They are elected based on these platforms. That is a fundamental part of the Ennies process: they are voted for as representatives.

If a judge-nominee platform is "I hate all PDFs and will always vote against them", extreme and unlikely though that may be (I picked a silly example, but you get the idea), and are subsequently elected based on that platform, the democratic process has been served.

The judges favortism got in the way of them making an informed decision about a product which is to represent the industry.

Please stop saying that. You have no idea what went through the judges' minds, other than that they apparently disagree with you. Ascribing motives to people in this way is simply dishonest and inappropriate.

--* I note that on another board, you're ascribing things to me that I haven't said, either. To be clear, despite your claim otherwise, I am not "slamming you for suggesting that judges be objective", I am advising you that the judges were objective to the extent that a human can be; in that they voted for products they genuinely considered the best in each category, regardless of whether they had seen them before. Yay for trackbacks.

Please, please, stop misrepesenting people, ascribing false motive to other people, misquoting people, or implying they're saying things they aren't saying. It's dishonest and disingenuous.

I also reiterate - if you were an entrant, then it is simply unseemly for you to be having this conversation.

That being said, if these awards are not for products to represent the industry, then by all means, continue in the manner upheld so far.

To "represent the industry"? I'm not sure what that means or where you got it from. The awards' mission statement is on the official website.

 

[Crothian]

The judges didn't just vote on their choices though. They argued, debated and convinced each other. If it was a blind vote that would be another thing entirely. But arguing and debating, there is a much higher chance that a product which isn't very good will get through,

The debating and arguing is better because we then talk about the strengths and weakness of a product. If I'm voting for Rifts (I like the game, too) but my reasoning is flawed or just not there the others will know it. Plus they can ask specific questions about what I liked verse what they did not.

We do reviews now on our podcast- and reviewed all of the books in 4 of the categories of the ENnies. These reviews were not based on opinion- we set the criteria for review before we opened them. Some of the games we were familiar with and liked the game- but when we reviewed, we looked at it in a new light.

All reviews are based on opinion. Sure, you can back it up with examples of what was good but people can easily disagree with those examples.

If you want to fork this thread and pick a category you think the nominations were sub par I'd be happy to discuss that with you. I was one of five judges last year, so I won't be able to speak for the others but I did go through all the major categories myself on my lj and tried to explain what was good and bad about each nomination.

 

[JoeGKushner]

The debating and arguing is better because we then talk about the strengths and weakness of a product. If I'm voting for Rifts (I like the game, too) but my reasoning is flawed or just not there the others will know it. Plus they can ask specific questions about what I liked verse what they did not.

Speaking as a past judge myself, I found the debating and arguing great because there are often so many products that if I see one coming up again and again in some people's list that I don't have, I go back and reread it for better or worse. It also helps when there are so many products that some of them of similiar nature and stature may get blurred and having people able to pick apart your favorite picks is a great thing.

Doing it to others however, is even better.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If a judge-nominee platform is "I hate all PDFs and will always vote against them", extreme and unlikely though that may be (I picked a silly example, but you get the idea)

Did you just call diaglo a silly example?

... well, fair enough

-Hyp.

 

[Henry]

Speaking for myself, what this situation WOULD do is make me question EVER entering into any private conversations or business dealings with Zachary Houghton, a person who can't keep private conversions exactly that -- private.

Anyone who has ever been party to closed-door discussions knows that a lot of ideas, both crazy and good, get thrown around in private before the finished idea is revealed. Making closed-door discussions public, for no good reason, leads to malicious rumors, tarnished reputations, and spreading untruths, exactly what I'm seeing here. Next thing you know, people on other forums are going to be slinging rumors that ENnies judges are taking bribes or some other such drivel, because of a mis-worded paragraph or possibly a misunderstanding Zachary had without talking to the rest of the ENnies staff (as Crothian indicated).

Now, what I AM seeing is someone who decided to make their resignation public in the apparent interest of "whistle-blowing", when there's no actual reason to do so. I'm not affiliated with the ENnies; I've never been a judge, never been support staff, I've run for judge one year and the rest I've marvelled at the great jobs the people selected continue to do. Quite frankly, with the harrassment people give them over perceived slights, over the awards they felt they "deserved" but didn't win, or armchair generals who think they can "make the thing so much better" despite having NO practical experience in such a project, even if they were paid, YOU COULDN'T PAY ME TO TAKE THAT MUCH HARRASSMENT for the good job that they do.

Carry on, ladies and gents -- I'm proud of you being professionals in the face of that much aggravation.