Zachary Houghton resigns as an ENnies judge

[evileeyore]

Well, at least the provided evidence shows that the CM-popular kids-clique-Judges & their Dinner-buddies have agreed upon lying to you the interested fan & customer on at least two occasions to cover up errors in the process.

You might not care for these process-mistakes, but if they really were minor, there would not have been a problem with being frank about it, no?

EDIT: Just to be clear, I´m talking about the pdf-download issue and the Monte Cook submission. Actually with the other pdf download issue regarding last year´s "avoided" law suit, it´s three times of agreement to ly to the public to cover up errors.

Sooo... I'm guessing you couldn't take fusangite's logical refutations on the RPGSite and have come here hoping to escape it?

How foolish.

 

[Obryn]

Sett, is your argument that one member of a committee - who's not the official spokesperson - can make official policy declarations on a private email list?

Look, I know that this grand conspiracy is much, much weaker than you wanted it to be. But find elsewhere to get your pound of flesh.

-O

 

[Settembrini]

Now you are constructing something, jdrakeh. I don´t have a dislike for ENnworld, just one for CM, 4e and Teflon Billy. But apart from that, I visit and enjoy ENnworld every day, and link to it regularly. Out of the thingws above 4e has curbed my enthusiasm sorely, but I´m not alone and the ed wars have definitely changed these boards for the worse, no matter if you are pro 4e or anti whatever.

Everyone can download the files via rapidshare or something similiar, and I only used pundit´s site because he already hosted them.


Anyway,

I see one staffer (a coordinator of some sort, not a judge) suggesting that a policy be retroactively altered to obscure an error (which, for the record, I think was a really uncool suggestion) — but absolutely nobody else agreeing with him or any proof that the suggested course of action was ever followed. Indeed, there is an open announcement on the ENnies home page that clearly proves the suggestion was not followed. Thus, no lie

.

Well, but what happened actually?
Nothing!
The policy was not altered retroactively.
The error was not made public to the interested parties (voters & competitors).
The award was not revoked.

So, what do you call that? I call that misinformation to cover up a mistake. And that´s lying in my book.

There also was a blatant lie:

The official statement that link-submissions weren´t allowed. Where in fact for certain games they WERE allowed last year.

As much as I can understand the sympathy many people have towards the ENnie staff, because they hang around together a lot, there are things that have gone pretty wrong.

Not only on the process but in the mindset of the ENnies regulars (=CM-clique).

And this is the "scandal" from my point of view, not that some mistake happened, but the way it was treated: cover up operations

@El Mahdi: It´s basically irrelevant to our discussion if the sources are "legal". Is it "legal" for some internet dudes to threaten Zach´s family? Because that´s what happened before Zach went public with the eMails. he was attacked by many hate mails, threats included. Both things are a breach of etiquette, both are petty & irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I think making it possible for everyone to review the evidence himself is a great boon. It keeps the discussion grounded on facts and their interpretation instead of wild speculation and accusation.

 

[Settembrini]

Sooo... I'm guessing you couldn't take fusangite's logical refutations on the RPGSite and have come here hoping to escape it?

How foolish.

Please drop it. This is not the place, it´s moderated, you know?

I just wanted to make some facts clear that are hidden under the carpet.

Fusangite made a fool of himself back at theRPGsite, there is no need to revenge for anything.

 

[Monkey Boy]

I see one staffer (a coordinator of some sort, not a judge) suggesting that a policy be retroactively altered to obscure an error (which, for the record, I think was a really uncool suggestion) — but absolutely nobody else agreeing with him or any proof that the suggested course of action was ever followed. Indeed, there is an open announcement on the ENnies home page that clearly proves the suggestion was not followed. Thus, no lie.

Not entirely correct from what I gather. Kennon is a judge this year and was a co-ordinator last year. So he would be spitballing this idea from an official judge capacity.

 

[Zinegata]

I'm fairly late coming into the discussion but this kinda drew my attention:

Or maybe there's an underlying reason why that judge had a positive opinion of a product. because, just maybe, they were good products, and the judges agreed that this was so.

By your logic, any product a judge has seen before and deemed of quality is automatically ineligle for nomination. Crap, we'd have publishers trying to hide their best work from potential judges, just in case they saw it and formed an opinion!

Yes, judges are allowed to have an opinion. They can have likes or dislikes. However, there is just one problem:

In at least one case, a judge crossed the line from expressing a "personal opinion" to "having a conflict of interest."

See, according to Meg...

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?

Now, I cannot confirm this as I don't own the book. But if Zachary was indeed quoted by Epic Role Playing, then it represents a clear conflict of interest.

The fact that your quote appears on the book means that you had access to the book prior to its release. Therefore, the judge at the very least had "behind the scenes" access to the material, or he was directly involved in its creation.

Now, people may argue that this is merely an innocent coincidence and the judge just really liked the book. This may indeed be the truth of the matter. But from a professional perspective, this is a pretty clear ethical violation.

Zachary was involved in some way with the Epic Role Playing book. Therefore, he should have excused himself from a supposedly independent competition whose incidental purpose is to help advertise and increase the sales of such books.

Again, whether the association is innocent or not is irrelevant. By the mere fact that he's associated with the publication prior to the book's release, Zachary should have excused himself from judging that particular book. This is the norm for all reputable ventures.

 

[One Horse town]

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.

 

[jdrakeh]

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.

FWIW, an excerpt of a review that I wrote of the original Epic products is also cited on the cover of the Epic book that was submitted for judging. I was not at all directly involved with the product's inception, production, or marketing. I believe that this was also true in Zachary's case. I don't think that there is a clear conflict there.

That said, as a huge fan of Epic since reviewing it I would have made this known and excused myself from judging the product in question — as Zachary should have (and possibly did, for all I know). He was also a big, unabashed, fan of Epic and one of its boosters on various different forums (notably RPGNet and theRPGsite, though).

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.

The submitted product was a re-issue of previous books, better formatted for easy access and released in hardcover format via Lulu.

 

[Crothian]

The official statement that link-submissions weren´t allowed. Where in fact for certain games they WERE allowed last year.

The only exceptions to this I can recall, as I said up thread, were for products sent that for whatever reason not everyone got or products we got via CD that just didn't work.

 

[evileeyore]

Well, but what happened actually?
Nothing!
The policy was not altered retroactively.
The error was not made public to the interested parties (voters & competitors).
The award was not revoked.

ZOMG! So for 39 days they did nothing!?!

J'accuse! Release the hounds!

So, what do you call that? I call that misinformation to cover up a mistake.

I call that the begining of an email conversation 39 days ago, that may have easily lasted a whole month. During which time, as has been explained to you at that other site "they" decided to get an ENnies PR person in place to handle this problems, namely making announcements and mea culpas.

OMG! It wasn't instantly so it msut be a c-o-n-spiracy!

And that´s lying in my book.

Strange, I use similiar words for what your doing after having something explained to you to be roughly the opposite of what you keep spotting.

There also was a blatant lie:

The official statement that link-submissions weren´t allowed. Where in fact for certain games they WERE allowed last year.

From what I gather, though I haven't seen an official statement, it was to the affect of "mailed cds didn't work so links were allowed in a few instances".

Honestly if you can't accept that, I donl;t think a rational conversation can take place.

As much as I can understand the sympathy many people have towards the ENnie staff, because they hang around together a lot, there are things that have gone pretty wrong.

I don't know any of these people IRL.

All I saw as "wrong" was on Zach's end. There is privacy and discussing your problems with the people you have problems with like rational adults... then there is taking tall tales to people known to be 'enemies' of those your having a disagreement with.

And this is the "scandal" from my point of view, not that some mistake happened, but the way it was treated: cover up operations

Right. One guy said "Hey, maybe we can pretend it never happened? No one wil notice" and a discussion was born. Don't know how it ended, but I can guess it wasn't "Lets immediately shout it from the rooftops" so Zach got pissy and stopped trying to make things better from within the system and went all "rebel alliance" and sent the "damning evidence" to Pundit.

Many Bothans died... yada, yada...

@El Mahdi: It´s basically irrelevant to our discussion if the sources are "legal". Is it "legal" for some internet dudes to threaten Zach´s family? Because that´s what happened before Zach went public with the eMails. he was attacked by many hate mails, threats included.

Really?

Zach ponied up the first set of emails pretty quickly, why not this set. Or hey, get the police involved. Thats what I'd do.

Or he can continue waving at "email" proof. The last wasn't at all daming. I have serious doubts about any others.