ENnies Voting Now Open

[LordEntrails]

ENnies voting is now available. See the thread here (https://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?3552-It-s-Time-To-Vote-In-The-ENnies!-The-2016-ENnies-Voting-Booth-Is-Live!#.V4PdV_krJhE) for the kick-off announcement. See this webpage (https://www.ennie-awards.com/vote/2016/)for actual voting.

Please take a moment to read through the Judge's profiles. I myself am running for next year (Dan Harlan). To me, selecting the correct judges is key to getting the right products for voting on next year. As Morrus states, please only vote on those products you've familiarized yourself with.

[gaara6666]

WOW ZERO mention of fantasy grounds under "best software" and the floating turd that is roll20 gets a slot to vote in. YEAH NOPE.

[LordEntrails]

Well, if you notice the one comment I make regarding possible improvements.

For background, part of that comes from this understanding I have; SW has asked to be included before, but they are told that they will only consider "new" products released in that time frame. OK, I get that. But, somehow Roll20 is included every year that I know of, but FG is not. I don't understand the criteria, and I feel strongly that's its something to be explained. And hopefully it will be before next year's voting.

[damned]

Well, if you notice the one comment I make regarding possible improvements.

For background, part of that comes from this understanding I have; SW has asked to be included before, but they are told that they will only consider "new" products released in that time frame. OK, I get that. But, somehow Roll20 is included every year that I know of, but FG is not. I don't understand the criteria, and I feel strongly that's its something to be explained. And hopefully it will be before next year's voting.

It makes no sense to me. FG release 5 new versions a year. Roll20 probably does about the same.

[hawkwind]

any the FG conversions 5e adventures could have been considered, looking at the nominations in this and other categories it all seems a bit cliquey and self congratulatory . I will not vote

[LordEntrails]

It makes no sense to me. FG release 5 new versions a year. Roll20 probably does about the same.
It does not make sense to me either. And FG isn't the only software package that suffers from this same... inconsistancy.


any the FG conversions 5e adventures could have been considered, looking at the nominations in this and other categories it all seems a bit cliquey and self congratulatory . I will not vote

I would ask you to at least reconsider voting in the judges category. It seems to me that the best chance of changing that or at least identifying if it is a real issue or just a widely help perception, is to vote for judges who might be able to make a change in that.

[seycyrus]

Didn't we have this thread last year, with the same double standard?

[seycyrus]

...t seems to me that the best chance of changing that or at least identifying if it is a real issue or just a widely help perception, is to vote for judges who might be able to make a change in that.

Which judges would fall in that category? Any besides L Entrails?

[LordEntrails]

Which judges would fall in that category? Any besides L Entrails?

Many of the judges profiles mention if they have judged before.

Edit: Current list of judges here: https://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/2016-judges/

[gaara6666]

Well what has me irritated is fantasy grounds this last year secured the FIRST and only official 5E licensing from wizards of the coast... and yet they are ignored year to year. Roll20 didnt join steam as a sold product. And yet somehow FG has become non-existent in the voting process. Let's not forget to mention curse of strahd FG conversion item or anything like that. I am profoundly upset at how incredulous it all is and I am almost at the point of calling outright nepotism with the judging etc.

[Nylanfs]

Yep, PCGen has the same problem. Although next year will be a big difference. :)

[Mellock]

I was a bit disappointed and confused last year about FG's absence in the ENnies while roll20 was included, and even more so this year. I don't really have anything against the ENnies or Roll20, but I think I'm gonna abstain from voting this time around because it doesn't feel right to me. I sincerely hope that by the next ENnies, the Unity FG can be considered properly, and I can vote for a product I use and enjoy greatly.

[LordEntrails]

I find it interesting. No comments on that thread for more than 24 hours (which is really long over there) since I made this post:
14712

[JohnD]

I find it interesting. No comments on that thread for more than 24 hours (which is really long over there) since I made this post:
14712

Frankly this very issue calls into question IMO the totality of the whole process; who else is getting screwed across all the categories?

I'm past the point where I care what strangers online think, but even if I weren't, this apparent/perceived lack of transparency and fairness would be something that would disincline me to participate and/or give a rat's fat behind about the results.

[LordEntrails]

Frankly this very issue calls into question IMO the totality of the whole process; who else is getting screwed across all the categories?

Fair thought. That's why I've asked the question.


I'm past the point where I care what strangers online think, but even if I weren't, this apparent/perceived lack of transparency and fairness would be something that would disincline me to participate and/or give a rat's fat behind about the results.

The results don't directly affect you or me, but they do affect, some very greatly, the publishers and creators of the products that do get nominated, and those that get excluded. They effect Doug, John, the people of PC Gen. Battlegrounds, and hundreds of the smaller publishers and players. It's on there behalf that I see the effort being worthwhile.

[JohnD]

Agree it is worthwhile. If I had skin in the game it would annoy me greatly. That there's no answer to your question speaks volumes.

[gaara6666]

I find it interesting. No comments on that thread for more than 24 hours (which is really long over there) since I made this post:
14712

WELL LOOK AT THAT "ONLY" things released in that certain time frame. Yet Roll20.net has a archive that dates back to 2008 AND the creator's twitter has post advertising it as a product before then too. https://twitter.com/roll20app/status/588791945184567296

So yeah I am outright calling bullshit on this one. I have had enough of people getting by and getting off with messing people over and screwing the majority of the creator base. So it might just be the inner paladin in me calling out but this is not right, it is a real disappointing issue that at this point is NOT a mere oversight, and I place charges on the Ennie voting ethical standards for knowingly manipulating the voter base and the community.

[LordEntrails]

The ENnies homepage (https://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/)
The EnWorld thread (https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?490193-It-s-Time-To-Vote-In-The-ENnies!-The-2016-ENnies-Voting-Booth-Is-Live!)I mentioned.

[lesliev]

Did you notice that Fantasy Grounds wasn't submitted for consideration, and Roll20 was?
https://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/2016-submissions

Though it still seems against the rules for Roll20 to be a valid submission.

[JohnD]

Someone over there is a fan or has a vested interest.

[LordEntrails]

...
Though it still seems against the rules for Roll20 to be a valid submission.

This is why I asked the question. Perhaps if more people voiced their concern or desire for an answer in that thread (or if they know any of the parties directly), maybe we would get an answer.

[JohnD]

According to Russ Morrissey on Facebook, FG does qualify.

[LordEntrails]

According to Russ Morrissey on Facebook, FG does qualify.

Link?

My understanding, and maybe Doug will or won't wish to weigh in, is that in past years FG & other apps were told they do not qualify. I'd like to see how any of them qualify, as none of them have initial releases in the year that qualifies them. Maybe you just have to have an update within that time frame? But that's not what the rules "seem" to say...

[JohnD]

Yeah it's in that link in the first post on the forum where he says he shared his thoughts on Facebook last year or something like that - phone won't let me grab a url for some reason.

[gaara6666]

Glad to see the narrative is getting pushed. Roll20 does so little in compared to other VTT in terms of accessible features yet the free2play platform seems to be getting free undeserved marketing while mot qualifying. I would be happy to see where it says f2f7 qualifies and johnD if you can find us an email we can vocalise our concern en mass

[JohnD]

According to Russ Morrissey on Facebook, FG does qualify.

https://www.facebook.com/russell.morrissey/posts/10154370921148707

Down at the bottom in the comments to his post.

I don't know where you could voice concern - they're a private website and can do whatever the heck they want. I guess there might be a general inquiries email address but that's getting way beyond my earlier stated feelings on the matter - all that bothers me here is the blatant double standard and general horse ****.

[gaara6666]

Well I am as t work bored so when I get home I will launch my inquiry to them about inconsistent rules. Maybe I am don Quixote tilting at windmills but I do not like to feel slighted either personally or vicarious ly

[damned]

Guys - its possible FG didnt nominate themselves....

[ddavison]

Hey guys,

This year, like many other years, SmiteWorks did not submit any products for nomination at the ENnies. I like ENWorld as a gaming community and source of news and I participate there periodically on their forums. Russ has always been friendly towards me and we've shared some data points with him that he uses in articles each year about the growth of various game systems in comparison with each other. The reason why I have a few reasons why I didn't submit anything this year and it is mostly due to a dislike of the process. I do like the systems like the Review system. Yes, you still get people who write negative reviews because they like a competitor, but overall it seems to weather that. The entire ENnie submission and nomination process is just far too subjective for my taste.

History:
2016:
Nothing was submitted by SmiteWorks

2015:
Submitted by SmiteWorks: Fantasy Grounds submitted D&D Lost Mine of Phandelver, D&D Complete Core Monster Pack and Fantasy Grounds.
Nominated from SmiteWorks: D&D Complete Core Monster Pack
The Other Nominees: Roll20 (not a product, but just the whole thing), Hero Lab (whole product), Syrinscape's Rise of the Runelords Mega SoundPack, Eclipse Phase: Singularity Character Generator
Winners: Roll20 (Gold), HeroLab (Silver)
* We sent out an email blast and call for voting when it first kicked off, but there was a voting problem and the votes had to be wiped out and restarted a day later.

2014:
SmiteWorks did not submit any products
I contacted Russ Morrissey about the process since I saw Roll20 and HeroLab in the nominations and it was unclear to me how the rules for submissions were governed since it requires the products to be for new releases within the window specified. He was unfamiliar with the precise situation but passed me to Tony Law, who said:


It's always depended on major updates. For example, Hero Labs submitted for a while because they were constantly updated their software (not just add-ons but major upgrades to the base system). If they don't update during submission timeframe, they're not eligible.

Winners: Roll20 (Gold), Realm Works (Silver)
Nominees: (can't locate it by category)

2013:
SmiteWorks did not submit any products
Nominees: Roll20, PCGen, Dice & Dragons - 3D Dice Roller, Cthulhu Mythos Encyclopedia, The Crawler's Companion
Winners: Roll20 (Gold), The Crawler's Companion (Silver)

2012:
SmiteWorks attempted to submit Banewarrens and Deadlands Reloaded.
- Deadlands Reloaded - Don't Drink the Water"
- Deadlands Reloaded for FG (Savage Worlds ruleset, Deadlands extension, Marshall's Handbook and Player's Guide conversions)
- other products were not able to get the approval from the original IP holder in time to submit this year
Tony law wrote back with a question, "what's a 'playable software conversion?'"
After describing what it is, his reply was

Unfortunately, since the content of the module hasn't actually changed, these would not be eligible if they were published outside of the current eligibility period.
To further clarify, I will post one response in entirety instead of paraphrasing it

If a module comes out in the specific eligibility period, i.e. May 1, 2011 to April 30, 2012 for this year, then it would be eligible for submission. However, I must caveat that with the fact that, as far as I understand it, you're converting other publisher's material and not your own.

Let's say you submit a Deadlands product, using your example in the previous e-mail, that was released in June of 2011. If you submit a conversion and the original publisher does not, it would severely limit its potential for nomination. I mean, the judges couldn't nominate it for Best Adventure if you submit it because you're not the original publisher.

And let's say that the original publisher does submit it and you do as well. Effectively, we have the same book submitted twice with yours having some very cool abilities that the other does not. We'd have to work around that as well.

In the end, our standing rule has always been that, if a product was published prior to the eligibility period and then re-published during the current period, it must have significant changes to the original material in order to be eligible. For your product, adding functionality to the electronic product does not change the material, hence my initial sentence in this e-mail.

I will say, however, that this should not discourage you from submitting products if they do fall into the eligibility period. But you would be required to get permission from the original publisher and you would both be credited for the submission. If the publisher is not willing to do that, then we cannot accept it.
Nominees: There was no Best Software category this year
Other Submissions: Hero Lab, Hero Lab Starter Edition, dxContent Random Generator Library, Map Runner, Table Runner, d20Pro, ProFantasy Fractal Terrains 3

[JohnD]

That is a ridiculous line of "logic" coming from them. So Roll20 benefits from not having any sanctioned products whereas team FG does and loses as a result.

This is a prime example of why I try not to attach any importance to these things; they are invariably biased.

[LordEntrails]

Doug, thanks for the detailed post. I think it helps a great bit understanding the history and perspectives. If I understand it correctly, you feel that you could have submitted the FG platform to the best Software category for 2016 if you had wanted to? But you chose not to because "mostly due to a dislike of the process"?

Would you be willing to state what changes to the process you would like to see (and any other changes) in order to feel that it would be worthwhile to submit FG (wholly or in parts) in future years?

[gaara6666]

I agree with Lord, I think although my ire has been raised at the ludicrous nature of the fallacy that is the logic I would like to see a proper guided platform on such things from your point of view Doug. Now that I have been properly educated that you electively decided not to take place in the Ennies I feel better. "Why go to chernobyl just to look for buried treasure?" I may be too biased against roll20 and therefore disqualify myself from being truly objective, but I feel the bland GUI and the simple google+ integration of media chatting does not a "definitive" product make.

Rather than reiterate into redundancy my "sour grapes" I am going to use this angry motivation to push myself to contribute more to FG and its community. When comparing the free2play to FG it is like comparing angry birds to Age of Empires, so I think I will finally get off my *** and DM a game or two.

[LordEntrails]

That is a ridiculous line of "logic" coming from them. So Roll20 benefits from not having any sanctioned products whereas team FG does and loses as a result. ...

I think it shows that they have evolved over the years as it appears they have changed their guidelines and in this case added the Software category. Unfortunately, I don't think their published rules indicate this or clearly identify how things appear to work. Maybe that will be an aspect I can help them to clarify.