Quote from: beeberyup, he sounds like a major fucktard to me.  he should come over to this place

How do you know he's not already here?

Quoteedit:  so we can give him what for.

Why would you want to do that?

Quotecan anyone vote for these retarded awards?

If they're retarded then why vote for them?

Quotetime to stuff the ballot box, for whatever ^_^

Why would you want to do that? What does it accomplish?

Quote from: Serious PaulSo even if we're not sure, then what? What is a reasonable response Pooka?

Now, now - didn't the sidhe lord tell you never to ask questions of a pooka because they are lyers who never tell the truth so you can't trust them? Of course, that's all a load of hogwash - pooka always tell the truth.

Quote from: PookaNow, now - didn't the sidhe lord tell you never to ask questions of a pooka because they are lyers who never tell the truth so you can't trust them? Of course, that's all a load of hogwash - pooka always tell the truth.

I'm not sure what your gig is here, but I have no fucking idea what you're saying, or why-so until you feel like clarifying I'll just assume you have nothing to say.

Edit

Oh I think I get it. You're one of those goofy furry fucks who think they're terribly clever with all this  third person stuff. So pretty much you and I will never ever see eye to eye. As we were then.

Quote from: PookaHow do you know he's not already here?



Why would you want to do that?



If they're retarded then why vote for them?



Why would you want to do that? What does it accomplish?

to be an annoying bastard, and to fuck with something i couldn't give a rat's ass about, that's why!  play Loki sometimes!

Quote from: joewolzYes

Quote from: Dan @ Fear the BootThe comments we made in that episode were a combination of three things:

1. Amibguous comments that were misunderstood.

2. Tongue-in-cheek humor about things we hadn't actually done.

3. Comments on things we really had done.

#1 and #2 are absolutely true, but they do not excuse #3. For this, I take full responsibility. The few things we actually did do were wrong, and I apologize both to the community and to the folks that run the ENnie Awards for having done them.

I really don't know why it didn't end there (well I do, but still, humans are curious creatures that never cease to amaze me.) Dan, it appears, was being a standup guy in admitting that, jokes aside, there was probably a line crossed there.

Quote from: Serious PaulI'm not sure what your gig is here, but I have no fucking idea what you're saying, or why-so until you feel like clarifying I'll just assume you have nothing to say.

Why can't you understand me? Here, look over this very inaccurate account as to the nature of my kind and try again.

Anyway, I was reminded by my pet dog Spookem that you asked the question 'What is the reasonable response?' Did you know I think that is an excellent question? I counterpoise again in question: what is the safe response?

Can you imagine the position of the management of the ENnies?  What do you do when you receive news that the awards you've worked on for seven years are being cheated on by one of the nominees? What do you do when you visit their site immediately after receiving that news and listen to the podcasts in question?

Your question arises - what is the reasonable response?

An excellent question, a salient one, but do you know how difficult and dangerous it truly is?

I stand by my post-you and I will never be more than two people on the same board.

Quote from: beeberto be an annoying bastard, and to fuck with something i couldn't give a rat's ass about, that's why!  play Loki sometimes!

Do you always give up this easily?  Are questions so difficult for you? Don't you understand that I simply want you to think and find the truth through careful deliberation?

Quote from: Serious PaulI stand by my post-you and I will never be more than two people on the same board.

Do you think this surprises me? As Kennedy once said most people spend their whole lives never looking beyond themselves because they are cowards mortally afraid of questioning the world or questioning themself.

You are are making assumptions based upon an incomplete grasp of the facts.  Please allow me to clarify:

• We are not disqualifying them for joking around. We are not disqualifying them for disrepecting the Awards. We are not disqualifying them for "poor taste". As a matter of fact, we really didn't want to have to officially disqualify them at all. We asked them to withdraw because they admitted to having voted from work and home. They apologized. That was not a joke. That is a fact.
• Voting more than once violates the democratic principle of one person, one vote. They blatantly broke that principle, forcing the Board's hand. We could not condone such behaviour through inaction.
• We will codify it in the future that cheating is grounds for disqualification.
• We will adopt methods of reducing the possibility of ballot-stuffing for future years.

Finally, I'd like to say that the ENnie Awards staff, Board, and judges are all volunteers who put in hundreds of hours every year into the Awards. And while none of us expect a pat on the back, it would be nice to not be rewarded with a kick to the teeth as it were.

We strive to maintain a high standard at all times in all aspects, but sometimes an individual staffer may snap when attacked, or make statements that do not bear out the Board's policies. I apologize if anyone associated with the ENnies has stepped over the line of professionalism and offended or misled anyone in this (or any other matter), and assure you that actions are being taken to discipline offenders and prevent re-occurrences.

Thank you for your understanding. I welcome emails at denise@ennieawards.com if you wish to continue this.

Quote from: GoOrangeThe whole thing disgusted me.

QFT

Quote from: One Horse TownUnfortunately, from what i've seen of some nominees, nearly International Olympic Comittee levels of canvassing is going on.

Canvassing is quite acceptable.  We (the ENnies) encourage all nominees to encourage their fan base to vote in an ethical manner.  The offending issue was with the open admission of voting more than once.  

In a democracy, that's cheating.

Quote from: beerberplay Loki sometimes!

This statement demonstrates your clear ignorance of the Loki concept.  Loki was not mischief for mischief's sake.

It is amusing, however, to see certain ENWorlders make as bad an asshat of themselves as Rasyr.  Apparently the phenomenon isn't limited to ENWorld, if this thread is any evidence.

Denise,

I'm curious.  I noted the voting page was updated on August 6th (yesterday as of this post).  What was added?  Was it the FAQ?

I ask, because, until that point, I couldn't find anything that prohibited voting multiple times for a judge. It states it clearly in the explanation for the actual voting (for games), but the only place it states it for judges is in the FAQ.

Am I missing a reference to it someplace else?

Thanks,
Jim

Quote from: DeniseCheaters don't get to play in my games.

Hmmm. Is there really anyone out there who doesn't think massive multiple voting is involved in any online poll?

Hi Jim,

We added the following sentence:
"Just remember, even if you do have access to multiple IP addresses, we follow the democratic principle of one person, one vote."

Before we were running with a gentleman's agreement based on the aforementioned principle, but figured we'd better hammer the point home.

Quote from: James J SkachDenise,

I'm curious.  I noted the voting page was updated on August 6th (yesterday as of this post).  What was added?  Was it the FAQ?

I ask, because, until that point, I couldn't find anything that prohibited voting multiple times for a judge. It states it clearly in the explanation for the actual voting (for games), but the only place it states it for judges is in the FAQ.

Am I missing a reference to it someplace else?

Thanks,
Jim