- Jul 3, 2012I 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]
- << Previous post in topic