Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 4484785" data-attributes="member: 7240">Here's a cross-posting of what I had to say in response to Houghton's statement on TheRPGSite: You say "unprecedented" like it's a bad thing. You proposed an unprecedented new policy. Rather than rejecting it out of hand, other members of the ENnies community decided to build an additional feature into your unprecedented proposal.The absence precedent is neither a good nor a bad thing. It just is what it is. I think your proposal had merit; and I think the proposed amendment answered the concerns that many of us had about its implications. You proposed improving the awards. Others improved your proposal.Indeed. Is there a problem with that?So you feel that people don't produce ill-considered crap? Or that if people do, no one would enter it in the awards if entering it cost the absolutely nothing. Beyond a tap of control-C followed by control-V and clickin "Send."If your unamended proposal were in effect, what, exactly, would stop an 11-year old recording his gaming sessions, putting them on his MySpace page and then forcing the judges to listen to five hours of them? What would stop someone taking every gaming session he wrote up printing it to a PDF file and sending it to the ENnies juddging panel? Nothing.Maybe you don't have anything better to do with your time than read anything and everything people feel like sending you. But I don't think a high-quality judging panel could be maintained if the opportunity cost of submission were reduced to zero.Good! More money to cover administrative expenses.Is there anyone you know of who has the resources to create five hours of quality podcast or a competent, thoroughly-tested publication who doesn't have $10? Who are these mythical people who are producing product good enough to compete with WOTC who can't find $10? Because I'm just not seeing it.One of two things is true here:(a) there are lots of people who could submit product for whom $10 is unaffordable; or(b) there are very very few people who could submit product for whom $10 is unaffordable. If option (b) is true, your proposed policy is unnecessary; if option (a) is true, the awards will be hurt because the workload of judges will increase significantly beyond its already unsustainable level. The quality of judges and judging will go down if (a) is true; if (b) is true, not doing what you want will also "in no way hurt the ENnies."Let's not lose sight of the fact that they mostly followed your suggestion.Last year, it cost entrants about $50 to produce six CDs and courier them to the judges and administrators. This year, it will cost $10. By getting an amended version of your policy adopted, you have reduced their costs by 80%.  The costs for entrants were lowered. They just weren't abolished.So, lowering the entry cost by 80% while increasing the awards' revenue will "do nothing to grow the awards"?Not having served as a judge last year I don't know what you're talking about and I don't know if this claim is accurate. Care to explain what you mean here?Because people took you seriously, accepted 80% of your proposal and moved forward with a new policy to accommodate your concerns? What <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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" />ing bastards!Be specific here. The awards have bent over backwards, in my experience, to give these guys their due. In my view, they have gone too far in accommodating them.Specifics please. What does this mean?Again, I see an accusation but I see no details that an observer could use to empirically verify your claims.This statement is an out-and-out lie. You should be ashamed of posting it.You know perfectly well that it was discovered after the nomination that it was published outside of the eligibility period. If it is your contention that someone knew the product was ineligible for nomination at the time it was nominated and that this was covered-up, please tell me who knew, how you know they knew and why they did this.I agree. And I have every confidence that these funds will be used not to pay the judges but to cover the costs they incur in the form of customs duties, travel and the other expenses that come with doing this job.But I'm curious: clearly you don't think it is unethical to receive thousands of dollars worth of free product; why is the type of currency in which judges are compensated at issue? What is the actual ethical difference between getting a $10 dollar book and getting $10.That's certainly true. But you make this statement as though it's connected to the other things you have said rather than just a motherhood statement you have chosen to affix to your diatribe.Openness and transparency have nothing to do with the issue over which you resigned or with the proposal you made. So, again, this is just a left field observation.Please stop lying. And if this isn't a lie, be specific: who are the judges who are biased, in whose favour are they biased and what is the evidence you are using to conclude this?Finally -- honesty. What you are basically saying is: I think I'm right about everything and I cannot engage in cooperative decision-making with people who hold other opinions than my own. To which I say: good riddance.I didn't vote for your re-election because it was clear to me that you are not a team player -- you don't seem to understand that a big part of being part of an elected group of representatives is learning to negotiate, cooperate and deliberate rationally. What I see from you is leaks, lies and extortion.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.Translation: As I feel that people should just do exactly what I tell them to instead of hammering-out a compromise with me on a new policy I'd like to introduce, I'm taking my ball and going home.I'll have some more to say once I've digested the thread.</blockquote>

Verification