Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Master of the Game" data-source="post: 4484011" data-attributes="member: 9220">I actually agree with you.  Maybe we should discuss this more (by "we" I'm referring to the general populous).  I think the problem here is really not so much though that the ENnies staff hasn't responded, but that Zach hasn't.  I think they've made an effort, but I'd really like to see what Zach has to say about it.Coming from a place of ignorance (I probably don't know more than anyone else, and less than anyone who has actually researched it), from what I understand Zach's "resignation" came in the form of a post on his own blog, which was linked here and he reposted on another forum.  I believe that was the first that he communicated it to the staff (although, I'm not privy to those discussions, but that's the feeling I got), not through any formal resignation.  And so far as I can tell he hasn't discussed it or answered to the ENnies responses anywhere.  If I'm wrong please forgive me.  I'd love to see what he has to say.Without his response it's awfully hard to see where the breakdown is occurring.  I can see why it's hard for the ENnie people.  the spokesperson is away, and I doubt anyone wants to step on toes until she has a chance to comment.  Beyond that, I believe there's only so much they *can* say.  I'm pretty sure on the application to be a judge it mentions requiring an NDA.Not to say that we can't discuss your points until then, but we should do so with understanding that there's a lot of silence from both sides, and until the only people who can really speak to those issues (DEnise and Zach) do so it's a whole lot of shadow boxing.Not that shadow boxing can't be productive and help us learn, but we need more meat for a real fight <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />As to your actual points, I'll respond with my own opinion as best I can:1) I think this more than anything is going to require Zach's input.  I'd like to hear how he feels the truth is being represented in light of the ENnies response.  In the mean time, without his input and given the absense of such a fee I'm inclined to believe this was as it has been represented here.  An idea someone brought up that was never adopted.2) Now this I think is unfortunate, but having been a judge I could see how it would happen.  The ENnies rely on publishers to honor the entry dates.  Someone somewhere made a mistake and no one caught it.  If the mistake was caught after voting was over and the date was off by a few days as an honest mistake, would you really take back their award?  We're not talking about disqualifying someone, we're talking about a big, embarrassing retraction for a 5 day mistake.  At worst the product would have been entered this year instead.  It's not a small issue, and it hopefully will lead to better vetting in the future, but this is a reasonable way to handle the issue and learn from the mistake.3) Being affiliated with a product before it is published, by the rules, does not disqualify one from being a judge.  I have done some playtesting on the Dresden Files myself, as I stated when running for the job.  That said, I would like to hear from Zach how closely he was tied to the product and exactly how he voted.  Personally I'd withdraw from discussions about the Dresden Files if it comes out, but we don't even know that he didn't.  Or, if he had just seen it in PDF or something and wasn't really tied to it at all.4) Absolutely, but let's be honest about why FtB was asked to leave.  Their podcast did sound like bad votes were cast.  They weren't asked to do so because they mentioned that it could be done.  I like the guys at FtB, I consider Dan a friend and I think their 'cast is amazing.  I was even the one that recommended a podcast category and personally asked FtB and a dozen other 'casts to join.  I'm no hater, and I still don't think that asking them to bow out was wrong.  There was a lot of bad crap in the fallout, and no one really deserved that, least of all Dan and the guys, but given the way the show came off (and I personally don't think they cheated) there wasn't likely another option.5) I think it has been taken as feedback, but since it's a year until we see the fallout I'd say it's a little too early to worry that it hasn't.  I really don't know what the answer is.  I believe Morrus is right, less than 10 is pretty ridiculous to try and judge 5 entrants, and that is the reason parent categories exist.  Maybe there is a better way to do it though, but the best option might just be encouraging more people to enter.I don't disagree with you, but these things take a little time, so let's give it through the weekend before we start worrying that there'll be no official response.  I don't know many people that would drop their vacation to respond to an issue from an unpaid volunteer position, and no one else really can respond in any kind of official manner.  In the mean time let's encourage Zach to give his response, but remember to give him some time to breathe too.  I doubt this has been easy for him either.</blockquote>

Verification