Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11300Re: Poll

Expand Messages
  • nelyo_russandol
    Jul 3, 2012
      I would vote for SurgicalSteel's option for this year.

      --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "surgeon_ruth" <surgsteel@...> wrote:
      > I have a suggestion which would require no new coding and no major re-hashing of policy: leave the ratings system as is, but remove the mandatory ratings panel review for stories rated '5' and trust the authors to rate their stories appropriately. Commit to a deadline for complaints (not allowing complaints after a certain date) and commit to a speedy turnaround on complaints (I think HASA lets you keep a story checked out for review for a week). Trust the ratings panel to recuse themselves when appropriate (to avoid appearance of bias and/or because they just don't have time one particular week).
      > Requires no new coding on anyone's part, requires no re-work of the rating system, requires less work (most likely) for the ratings panel, and doesn't make those of us who've written stories with a 5 rating feel stigmatized.
      > --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta <marta.fandom@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hello Sandra and everyone,
      > >
      > > I understand that you and everyone else are anxious upset about the new
      > > rating system. However, your suggestion that we delay the awards and go
      > > back to the old system isn't realistic. The old system was pretty seriously
      > > flawed, as the situation at the end of last year's awards showed. Everyone
      > > agrees that it isn't fair to authors to pull out their stories so late in
      > > the awards, and that's precisely what I'd have to do if the exact same
      > > situation happened in the 2012 awards.
      > >
      > > You suggested that we delay the awards and discuss the ratings systems in
      > > more detail now. But that's an unrealistic request for several reasons. For
      > > one thing, MEFAs aside, I don't have time to participate in a detailed
      > > discussion like that would require right now. More importantly, the other
      > > awards organizers and I simply aren't interested in rehashing this policy
      > > for one last year. I'm willing to continue working with the MEFAs through
      > > one more, for two real reasons. First, we are very nearly ready to start
      > > the awards so, compared to most years, there's not that much work left to
      > > do in order to get ready for it. And perhaps more importantly, I had
      > > already said there would be MEFAs in 2012, before I had any indication
      > > people had such passionate concerns about ratings. That is why I was
      > > willing to run the MEFAs for one last year if that's what people wanted.
      > >
      > > However, I'm not willing to make such major changes, nor am I willing to
      > > delay things and start the whole process of lining up volunteers all over
      > > again. That's not reasonable, given the circumstances. Of course, if anyone
      > > thinks the 2012 content advisory system (or any other aspect of the
      > > awards!) makes the awards not worth having, then you are free to vote that
      > > way in the polls going on now. I can also put you on our don't-nominate
      > > list whichever way the polls go.
      > >
      > > I realize that a binary poll like this seems restrictive. It is, in many
      > > ways. Unfortunately, other options like the ones you suggest would simply
      > > require more time and effort than I'm willing to invest in the MEFAs.
      > >
      > > Btw, Elliska was right that I'm not going to be around for a lot of today.
      > > I'm headed out in an hour and won't be online again until at *least* 4 PM
      > > (probably later). I'll answer as many emails as I can before then, and as
      > > many as I can tonight when I get back. Thanks for the patience!
      > >
      > > Marta
      > >
      > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Sandra <isisrising08@> wrote:
      > >
      > > > **
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > There should be a third alternative in the poll. Have the 2012 season with
      > > > the same rules/procedures as used in prior years in place. Would this
      > > > require a month's postponement of the awards season? Yes. But it would
      > > > return things to a ratings system that are understood and dialog can take
      > > > off for future changes from there.
      > > >
      > > > I don't like either of the two choices you've offered me in your "poll".
      > > >
      > > > - Erulisse (one L)
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic