Re: [MEFAwards] Post-Mortem Topic #1: Number of Nominations
- Personally, I like #2. Some people entered dozens of nominations, others
only one or two.
I think a fairly high cap--say ten or twelve--would be easiest. Some people
still would only nom one or two, but people who nominated many more would
have to stop and decide just which ones they *really* wanted. If you are
concerned about drabbles (and possibly poetry), perhaps have an additional
cap: something along the lines of 10 total nominations of regular stories,
with up to 15 nominations, only nine of which could be regular stories. (So
one could nom nine short stories, and up to six drabbles and/or poems).
The idea of having to vote for your nommed stories seems reasonable to me,
but then that was the first thing I did anyway. Why nom something you have
no intention of voting for? But I can see how that would be problematical
with self-nominated stories...
I also don't like the idea of limiting it to stories from the current year.
There are a good many older stories that *still* have possibilities. The
idea that perhaps the writer may no longer be in the fandom isn't really a
problem. Since authors have to confirm a story, then if they don't have an
interest any more they will not confirm it--that automatically cuts down on
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marta" <melayton@...>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 11:35 PM
Subject: [MEFAwards] Post-Mortem Topic #1: Number of Nominations
> Hey guys,
> I hope all of you are out at Halloween parties or giving trick-or-treaters
> cavities. But
> tomorrow is November 1, which means in addition to ghouls and goblins,
> it's also time to
> start our 2005 Post-mortem.
> In order to keep things manageable, we'll limit this to a topic or two at
> a time. I'll
> introduce a topic and everyone can weigh in. When we've reached a decision
> I'll introduce a
> new topic. If there's something in particular you'd like to discuss, feel
> free to email
> mefasupport@... and I'll make sure we discuss it.
> So... first on the agenda. This year we had a lot of nominations. I heard
> from people who
> had done a lot of votes who felt guilty for not doing more, and from other
> people who
> didn't vote at all or as much as they would have liked to because they
> felt overwhelmed.
> Even I felt the number of nominations was too high. But what, short of
> breaking my fingers
> during nomination season, can we do to cut down on the numbers?
> There have been several suggestions:
> 1. Limit the number of nominations, period. Once we reach this cap no more
> are allowed.
> 2. Limit the number of nominations per person.
> 3. Limit the number of nominations in a time period.
> 4. Limit the number of nominations in a time period per person. (I.e., you
> can nominate, a
> certain number of pieces per week.)
> 5. Limit nominations to pieces written this year.
> 6. Require the nominator to enter a vote for the story before the
> nomination can be
> I can see pluses and negatives on any of these. If we go with one of the
> caps, I suggest not
> counting drabbles, as I think doing so would encourage people to nominate
> longer pieces
> instead. I have to admit that I'm most partial to #5. In addition to
> making sure that people
> slow down and think about their nominations, it ensures that every piece
> except for self-
> nominations gets at least one vote. And it rewards people who are willing
> to put forth a
> little bit of effort, which I'm always for.
> But that's just my opinion. What do you think? Do any of these sound good?
> Are there any
> other ideas you have?
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- Hi Chris,
On 3 Nov 2005, at 20:56, Chris Grzonka wrote:
> > Because everyone has been
> > reading them all year there is no need for a reading season. We
> added that
> > the first year of the MEFAs to give people a chance to read stories
> > to archives they did not usually read.
> I knew a lot of the nominated stories, but to write a review I still
> had to
> read at least part of it again.
I can understand that. I'm not sure if something's wrong with my memory
;-) but I can't remember stories properly either! I think a lot of
people try to re-read at least part of a story. Or at least I hope I'm
not alone in that!
So the period of the awards that was previously called reading season
and voting season will be at least as long as it is now. It will
probably get just a bit longer if we decide to shorten nomination
season. I think that calling the whole thing voting season would make
it more clear that people can vote for stories during what was formerly
called reading season.
> I didn't want to go back to the site where
> the story is archived and read my original review to some of the
> stories to
> just repost it again. I thought it unfair to the author. But to write
> something new I still had to read the story again. Unless I betaed a
> than I knew it by heart<g>. So, no matter that I knew stories I still
> time to read.
Thanks for that! I received a few of your reviews and really loved the
new feedback. As I'm awful about leaving feedback at the original
archives this isn't such a point for me.
This is something that came up in a lot of reviews. People would say
they were copying (or adapting) their review from such-and-such a
sight, and I understand the need to get as many reviews done. I'm not
saying people shouldn't be allowed to do this - but that I do enjoy the
new reviews as well.
> > In 2004 the volunteers had to copy each vote into
> > Word, do a character count (using Word's word count feature), look
> at a
> > table to see how many points that character count got, and record
> > information in an Excel document. Lots of behind-the-scenes work.
> This sounds very cumbersome. Thanks to Anthony for the nifty web
Oh yes! A series of family emergencies meant I couldn't participate in
the voting part of last year, but from what I've heard it was very work
intensive. That's why it took two weeks. (Another season that perhaps
we need to re-evaluate - we certainly needed two weeks to check and
compute results originally, even if we don't now.)
Anyway, I've heard the stories... and YES. I cannot say it enough.
Thank you, Anthony.
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."