Yahoo Forum Archive

Let's not quote large chunks of the story. A line here or there is
fine if it really struck you. But otherwise, it just looks like vote
padding. This is one case in writing where you want to tell, not
show.

--Ainaechoiriel
MEFA Admin and Founder

> Let's not quote large chunks of the story. A line here or there is
> fine if it really struck you. But otherwise, it just looks like vote
> padding. This is one case in writing where you want to tell, not
> show.

Hi Ainaechoiriel,
you were probably thinking of some of my votes.
I seem to be a very aberrant voter.

So let me apologize and explain why I did it:

1) At MEFAwards I like to read other reviews
just to see if there are stories to my taste that I missed.
Moreover if I like a story I just want to learn what struck other readers.
(I am one who even reads the often meaningless but glowing reviews
at fanfiction.net if I like the story hoping I will find the one or other
informative review.)

2) As speech is for me a predominant selection factor I also would like to
see
which passages were the most impressive for other readers.
(OT: I personally would like to read the reviews to the various stories
collected in the Yahoo-database allocated beside the title and the summary.)

3) I quoted those passages because IMO
they show the craft of the author better than my poorly worked paraphrases.
Umh, yes I wanted to showcase those of
the author's abilities which impressed me most.
Especially poetical words, which are my personal predilections,
cannot be paraphrased without losing all of their beauty IMO.
And I personally would like to know from my readers which of my
words were felt as particularly evocative or beautiful.

4) I had even selected more quotes, but deleted them because I felt
I should not clog the mail-boxes of the participants ;-)

5) I was not aware that "showing" is frowned at
(probably repressed that info).


Conclusion:

a) In future I will try to paraphrase because as you rightly observed
quoting might look like padding (though I meant it as showing
which is though seemingly nearly as undesirable).

b) In future I will quote larger chunks only
if my own words have reached nearly 1100 characters as a
little bit of quoting is permissible.

Best wishes from Elanor
who is again stealing from real life
trying to explain her aberrant views :-)

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "elanor of aquitania" <elanor@c...>
wrote:

> Hi Ainaechoiriel,
> you were probably thinking of some of my votes.
> I seem to be a very aberrant voter.
>
> So let me apologize and explain why I did it:
>

(snipped)

> 2) As speech is for me a predominant selection factor I also would

like to

> see
> which passages were the most impressive for other readers.
> (OT: I personally would like to read the reviews to the various

stories

> collected in the Yahoo-database allocated beside the title and the

summary.)

I plan to put them up on a web page if Larian and I manage to
successfully copy each and every comment to an Excel spreadsheet in a
format conducive to mail merging (It would help us greatly if
comments didn't have hard line breaks unless a new paragraph is being
written).

I doubt it will be in a database in the YahooGroup though as it would
probably take up all our space. ;-) The database we have in the
MEFAStaff group for comparing the three counts per category has 952
entries. That's how many nominations we have between stories and
authors.

> 3) I quoted those passages because IMO
> they show the craft of the author better than my poorly worked

paraphrases.

> Umh, yes I wanted to showcase those of
> the author's abilities which impressed me most.
> Especially poetical words, which are my personal predilections,
> cannot be paraphrased without losing all of their beauty IMO.
> And I personally would like to know from my readers which of my
> words were felt as particularly evocative or beautiful.
>
> 4) I had even selected more quotes, but deleted them because I felt
> I should not clog the mail-boxes of the participants ;-)
>
> 5) I was not aware that "showing" is frowned at
> (probably repressed that info).

It really wasn't thought of until it came up and I imagine this will
come up in the post-mortem for sure. We did have one request (which
will remain anonymous) to ban quoting altogether. I don't want to go
that far. Heck, I like to quote a favorite line here and there.

It's just that, well, as somone else said (again anonymous), it's not
a comment. It's repeating the author's words. He/she would skip over
those sections because he/she'd already read them.

There is a certain logic to that. The author's words are showcased
in the nomination itself. You can tell why the words are so powerful
or evocative or whatever. But to quote a whole stanza of a poem is
redundant. It showcases those words twice. And it very definitely
does pad the vote. Though I know that was not your intent. Someone
who's story comes in second or maybe fourth may be very unhappy to
find that a story with large chunks of quoted text won the award.
They might look up all the comments, count them themselves, and see
that without those quoted chunks the winning story wouldn't have one
and their story would have.

Or, for an extreme example, if someone wrote a drabble that a voter
thought was just sheer genius, every word, they might quote the whole
drabble and just say "Genius!" Now, their comment consisted of only
7 characters, worth 1 point. But by quoting htose 100 words, they
might have 700 characters plus those 7 and now have a 9-point comment.

That just doesn't look right, does it?

So this will definitely come up in the post-mortem and we'll nail
down a rule for next year. How much can you quote and how much is
too much? That will be a tough one to nail down I think. But we'll
need to.

> Conclusion:
>
> a) In future I will try to paraphrase because as you rightly

observed

> quoting might look like padding (though I meant it as showing
> which is though seemingly nearly as undesirable).

Right, thanks.

> b) In future I will quote larger chunks only
> if my own words have reached nearly 1100 characters as a
> little bit of quoting is permissible.

;-) Okay. That will work because you'd have already hit the cap of 10
points. But do try not to do this as others may see your quotes and
think they'll quote a large chunk too, and not think about having a
10-point comment before they do. Set a good example.

> Best wishes from Elanor
> who is again stealing from real life
> trying to explain her aberrant views :-)

;-) Well, hey, I stole the whole basis of these awards from a
newgroup. I had to tweak it a bit to make it fit here though....

--Ainaechoiriel

> There is a certain logic to that. The author's words are showcased
> in the nomination itself. You can tell why the words are so powerful
> or evocative or whatever. But to quote a whole stanza of a poem is
> redundant. It showcases those words twice. And it very definitely
> does pad the vote. Though I know that was not your intent. Someone
> who's story comes in second or maybe fourth may be very unhappy to
> find that a story with large chunks of quoted text won the award.
> They might look up all the comments, count them themselves, and see
> that without those quoted chunks the winning story wouldn't have one
> and their story would have.

Hi Ainaechoiriel and dear offended writers or voters,

I can understand the anonymous voter's view though
I do not agree with it.
For me showing is not worse than paraphrasing.
For me paraphrasing is ere worse than showing.

If you analyze a work of literature you quote the
respective sentences, you do not destroy the author's
work by paraphrasing and by making it unrecognizable.
At least I do not like to read secondary literature on
literature where the author's words are deemed unworthy
to be cited.

The author's words are shown in the nominated text, yes.
But just the special sentences where the author achieved
her/his outstanding results are buried within the whole.
Showing these special achievements I meant with showcasing.

Example:
The quoted part of Alawa's poem is for me her highest
achievement. And I very much liked to showcase it.

Yet, the preferred procedure seems to be another.
For instance I should describe Alawa's stanza
destroying all its beauty
thereby explaining why for me it is beautiful.
This seems to me to be counterproductive.

Offending words:
Best passage for me:
"in the stable steamed warm breathing
as welcome was heard from whickering horses.
Softly then she stroked their noses,
ran her hand over rump and wither,
keen were they to carry her.
Wildly we galloped in golden mist-shroud
wind whipped hair as horses ran
free over fields followed the river
spring's melt-water milk between willows. "

This counts as 298 characters.

New words:
The best passage is for me the stanza-part "in the stable steamed warm
breathing . spring's melt-water milk between willows." where we find the
relationship of Rohirrim and their horses described in very beautiful words.
And Elfhild's joy of life is invoked in the reader's mind when Elfhild
strokes the horses' noses and husband and wife gallop through golden-tinted
mist. A very beautiful picture is raised in my mind by the words "spring's
melt-water milk".

This counts as 386 characters.

As we are discussing it already now,
is this kind of citing at least permissible
or are we really only allowed to write our own words ?

Should I write (this counts as 329 characters, also more characters than the
stanza-part itself):
The best passage is for me a part of the fifth stanza where we find the
relationship of Rohirrim and their horses described in very beautiful words.
And Elfhild's joy of life is invoked in the reader's mind when Elfhild
strokes the horses' noses and husband and wife gallop through golden-tinted
mist. A very beautiful picture is raised in my mind by the words which
describe the white melt-water.

So by describing or citing the beginning and end
of the part of the stanza and by recounting
a few mind-pictures I need even more words.
For me this procedure is not as good
as that what I did by showcasing.

Nevertheless, as my view is an aberrant view I offer
to rephrase my votes which include quotes to avoid such
unhappiness induced by quoted chunks.
But please advise me what you find acceptable.

Would that be to your liking ?
Should I send in those rephrased votes on Amnesty day ?

If this is too much work for the administrators,
please you anonymous writers who feel slighted by quoting
accept my sincere apologies.

But know also that,
if quoting had not been allowed from the beginning,
I would simply have paraphrased the quotes
(as I showed above probably leading to more characters)
with my own poor words to show the author
what I liked most of the work in discussion.
So please, dear writers, excuse my quoting
and perhaps you can also a little bit understand my view
even if you do not agree with it.

> ;-) Okay. That will work because you'd have already hit the cap of 10
> points. But do try not to do this as others may see your quotes and
> think they'll quote a large chunk too, and not think about having a
> 10-point comment before they do. Set a good example.

I will abstain in future from quoting large chunks
even in long votes to set a good example.
And I offer to rephrase my offending votes.

With my apologies to all who thought my quoting
quite undesirable
Elanor
still preferring quoting to paraphrasing
but accepting the majority's view

I may be the only one who thinks so, but the whole idea of voting by number
of words is a mistake. To me, much better would be one vote = one word:
best. The most best votes gets 1st, 2nd most gets 2nd, and so on. Then,
let the voters write as much or as little as they'd like about why they
voted as they did. Many fanfic readers are not gifted writers, and a long
review of something that moved them is intimidating. I joined this group to
get more exposure to good fanfic without having to sift through the ocean of
posted material that doesn't interest me. But, I'm not sure the awards are
accurate. I am willing, though, to be proved wrong.

White Gull

_________________________________________________________________
Donýt just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

-----Original Message-----
From: M E [mailto:SR_1420@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 8:45 AM
To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [MEFAwards] apologies to writers/voters offended by quoting

>I may be the only one who thinks so, but the whole idea of voting by number

of words is a mistake. To me, much better would be one vote = one word:
best. The most best votes gets 1st, 2nd most gets 2nd, and so on. Then,
let the voters write as much or as little as they'd like about why they
voted as they did. Many fanfic readers are not gifted writers, and a long
review of something that moved them is intimidating. I joined this group to
get more exposure to good fanfic without having to sift through the ocean of
posted material that doesn't interest me. But, I'm not sure the awards are
accurate. I am willing, though, to be proved wrong.

Hi!

I invite you to read our Mission and Charter:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ainae/mefa/mission.html

There are many awards out there that run on a popular vote format (also some
that run by panels of judges). This Awards program was not brought into
existance for that. It is a comment-based awards program, where awards are
actually a *secondary* purpose to encouragement: encouraging readers to read
and encouraging writers through feedback. This is an awards system borrowed
from Alt.Startrek.Creative's annual awards that have been running
successfully since before 1996, when I first became involved in them.
Because those awards have been such a big encouragement to me as a Trek
fanfic writer, I wanted to bring this positive experience to the LOTR
fandom.

And though ASC did used to count by lines and then characters, I don't think
they ever counted by word as words can be so different in length. Lines
were at least formatted to only 70 characters. We count by characters here.

No voter needs to be eloquent. All they have to do is say why they liked a
story. Heck, post-Mega-and GigaStress, I'm not sure my comments even make
sense let alone are eloquent. Some write large amounts, some write 3-point
votes for even their favorite story. Remember that the awards are always
secondary.

We may change some rules for next year in the post-mortem, but this one
thing will never change with the MEFAs: We are a comment-based awards
program. I'll close them down before I change that.

But I don't see that being a problem. We've had a good turn out of votes
for Elves and Men (with only 4 stories, I think, having no votes--but
there's still Amnesty Day) and I anticipate a successful Awards program this
year and thus a 2005 MEFAwards program next year.

--Ainaechoiriel
MEFA Admin and Founder

"This evil cannot be concealed by the power of the Elves," Elrond said, "for
it is Windows-compatible, and freeware at that." --H.F.

http://gabrielle.sytes.net/mefa The Middle-Earth Fanfiction Awards
Blog: http://www.ainaechoiriel.blogspot.com

Thanks for your response, and yes, I did read before I joined. I have also
seen this done other places, not just online. I still had doubts as to the
accuracy of awards, but as I noted, I joined for the other benefit, of
exposure. Maybe that's where the problem, if there is one, lies. Many here
must participate mainly for the reviews. Those who join mainly for the
award will feel the voting system might be "unfair," as prompted this suject
in the first place. But, to join mainly for the reviews is flawed as well,
as if someone doesn't want you to win, they won't review your work, and you
won't benefit from their critique.

Oh well, I think I'll just appreciate the good here, and not worry about the
rest.

WG

>From: "Ainaechoiriel" <mefaadmin@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
>To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: RE: [MEFAwards] apologies to writers/voters offended by quoting
>Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:12:17 -0500
>
>Hi!
>
>I invite you to read our Mission and Charter:
>
>http://home.earthlink.net/~ainae/mefa/mission.html
>
>There are many awards out there that run on a popular vote format (also
>some
>that run by panels of judges). This Awards program was not brought into
>existance for that. It is a comment-based awards program, where awards are
>actually a *secondary* purpose to encouragement: encouraging readers to
>read
>and encouraging writers through feedback. This is an awards system
>borrowed
>from Alt.Startrek.Creative's annual awards that have been running
>successfully since before 1996, when I first became involved in them.
>Because those awards have been such a big encouragement to me as a Trek
>fanfic writer, I wanted to bring this positive experience to the LOTR
>fandom.
>
>And though ASC did used to count by lines and then characters, I don't
>think
>they ever counted by word as words can be so different in length. Lines
>were at least formatted to only 70 characters. We count by characters
>here.
>
>No voter needs to be eloquent. All they have to do is say why they liked a
>story. Heck, post-Mega-and GigaStress, I'm not sure my comments even make
>sense let alone are eloquent. Some write large amounts, some write 3-point
>votes for even their favorite story. Remember that the awards are always
>secondary.
>
>We may change some rules for next year in the post-mortem, but this one
>thing will never change with the MEFAs: We are a comment-based awards
>program. I'll close them down before I change that.
>
>But I don't see that being a problem. We've had a good turn out of votes
>for Elves and Men (with only 4 stories, I think, having no votes--but
>there's still Amnesty Day) and I anticipate a successful Awards program
>this
>year and thus a 2005 MEFAwards program next year.
>
>--Ainaechoiriel
>MEFA Admin and Founder
>
>"This evil cannot be concealed by the power of the Elves," Elrond said,
>"for
>it is Windows-compatible, and freeware at that." --H.F.
>
>http://gabrielle.sytes.net/mefa The Middle-Earth Fanfiction Awards
>Blog: http://www.ainaechoiriel.blogspot.com
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "M E" <SR_1420@h...> wrote:

> Thanks for your response, and yes, I did read before I joined. I

have also

> seen this done other places, not just online. I still had doubts as

to the

> accuracy of awards, but as I noted, I joined for the other benefit, of
> exposure. Maybe that's where the problem, if there is one, lies.

Many here

> must participate mainly for the reviews. Those who join mainly for the
> award will feel the voting system might be "unfair," as prompted

this suject

> in the first place. But, to join mainly for the reviews is flawed

as well,

> as if someone doesn't want you to win, they won't review your work,

and you

> won't benefit from their critique.

But what is the likelihood of three, four, five, x many voters all
participating in a conspiracy of silence against one person's story?
All you have to do is vote with fewer characters--you don't have to
say nothing at all--and then make sure you write more for the stories
you think are best. Proportionality is something you can jigger
without committing yourself to a refusal to vote for a story. And
frankly, if someone is that opposed to a story's winning, what is the
likelihood of that person having anything positive to say about the
story in the first place, which is the other part of the comment-based
system designed to control for flames: keep it positive; you're voting
for stories you think are *good*, not the stories you think are awful.

In general, I think we're running into a fundamental balance of
mutually opposed forces: 1) competition, and the desire for an
objective measure of what the best story is; 2) the desire to give
feedback on stories as an appropriate way of thanking the author for
his or her work. Somehow, (2) needs to be made to serve (1), and (1)
needs to insure that (2) happens.

We know from experience that (2) happens for almost every story that
gets posted--see FF.net. At the same time, we know from personal
experience *coughcough* that many of us need some "motivation" to get
off our rears and write the darned review. (1) is the carrot to get us
to do (2) in a timely fashion. (1) is also the carrot that encourages
us to read things we normally wouldn't, in an effort to honor the idea
of fair competition--as fair as we can make it knowing that no one can
have read *all* the stories in the database, but that among the lot of
us, every story should have been read by at least the person who
nominated the story, if not one other at least.

At the same time, we know that (1) is an impossible evaluation, useful
only as an ideal limiting concept. In the first place, naturally,
awards are arguably *not* for the best story in the fandom: awards are
for those stories which actually participate. I forget who in history
said this, but this isn't an original argument. So the best story
objectively might not even have been nominated for any number of
reasons like its obscure host site, that its fans don't know of the
MEFAs, that it was written in Japanese, etc.

But also, remember that Tolkien disliked Shakespeare, the acknowledged
master of English prose. Tolkien also was not happy with W.H. Auden (I
think it was Auden) when Auden made acceptance of Tolkien's work his
literary taste pass-fail test. The lesson to take from this: that kind
of objective standard does not exist for a work of art, however
derivative, and it is a mistake to think that it does or that any
award can say with finality that is has identified *the* best stories
in the fandom or even the indisputably best story presented for
evaluation. We know this. We also know that the two standards most
accepted--popular acclaim and judgment by those who have assiduously
cultivated their literary tastes--tend to give very different results,
and neither are perfect. It doesn't mean, however, that they are
meaningless.

I look forward to the post-mortem, when we can go into nitty-gritty
detail on all these issues, but I think you said it best, White Gull:

> Oh well, I think I'll just appreciate the good here, and not worry

about the

> rest.

Insofar as the set up works to get voters to read and then to actually
vote, I think the system has succeeded, at least for those voters. So
for me, personally, the awards have succeeded. The power of a deadline
is a wonderous thing! ;-) So long as the voters are participating in
good faith, I think that's as much as can be asked. It'd be great if
more readers and authors would participate as voters, but hopefully
turnout will increase either in later categories or else next year.

Dwim

Hi White Gull,
I agree with Ainaechoiriel as to that the reviews should
act as feedback to the writers.

Each system of categorizing has its flaws
and I can understand your views.
But on the other hand I personally cannot even say
_which_ story is the best for me in one category
as firstly I still have not read all
and secondly I can not decide between those read.

I can only say that due to these or that merits
I like the respective story very much.
So for me this idea of counting characters is a nice idea to
spur the reviewers to take more pain with those reviews of
stories they like more than others.

And for me it is really not easy to write chiselled reviews
as English is not my native tongue. But I tried to read
and review as much as possible at least in my favourite category.
And I still dramatically failed as I found not the time
to write and send in the reviews to the stories of my favourite author.
Though I know those stories very well for a chiselled review
I have to reread them and look for the most impressive parts.

So let us all live with the flaws ;-)
But I really do not like to make writers/voters unhappy
therefore I sent my apologies
and if need be I would like to make amends.

Best wishes Elanor

White Gull wrote:

>
> Thanks for your response, and yes, I did read before I
> joined. I have also
> seen this done other places, not just online. I still had
> doubts as to the
> accuracy of awards, but as I noted, I joined for the other
> benefit, of
> exposure. Maybe that's where the problem, if there is one,
> lies. Many here
> must participate mainly for the reviews. Those who join
> mainly for the
> award will feel the voting system might be "unfair," as
> prompted this suject
> in the first place. But, to join mainly for the reviews is
> flawed as well,
> as if someone doesn't want you to win, they won't review your
> work, and you
> won't benefit from their critique.
>
> Oh well, I think I'll just appreciate the good here, and not
> worry about the
> rest.
>
> WG
>
>
> >From: "Ainaechoiriel" <mefaadmin@earthlink.net>
> >Reply-To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> >To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
> >Subject: RE: [MEFAwards] apologies to writers/voters
> offended by quoting
> >Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:12:17 -0500
> >
> >Hi!
> >
> >I invite you to read our Mission and Charter:
> >
> >http://home.earthlink.net/~ainae/mefa/mission.html
> >
> >There are many awards out there that run on a popular vote
> format (also
> >some
> >that run by panels of judges). This Awards program was not
> brought into
> >existance for that. It is a comment-based awards program,
> where awards are
> >actually a *secondary* purpose to encouragement: encouraging
> readers to
> >read
> >and encouraging writers through feedback. This is an awards system
> >borrowed
> >from Alt.Startrek.Creative's annual awards that have been running
> >successfully since before 1996, when I first became involved in them.
> >Because those awards have been such a big encouragement to
> me as a Trek
> >fanfic writer, I wanted to bring this positive experience to the LOTR
> >fandom.
> >
> >And though ASC did used to count by lines and then
> characters, I don't
> >think
> >they ever counted by word as words can be so different in
> length. Lines
> >were at least formatted to only 70 characters. We count by
> characters
> >here.
> >
> >No voter needs to be eloquent. All they have to do is say
> why they liked a
> >story. Heck, post-Mega-and GigaStress, I'm not sure my
> comments even make
> >sense let alone are eloquent. Some write large amounts,
> some write 3-point
> >votes for even their favorite story. Remember that the
> awards are always
> >secondary.
> >
> >We may change some rules for next year in the post-mortem,
> but this one
> >thing will never change with the MEFAs: We are a comment-based awards
> >program. I'll close them down before I change that.
> >
> >But I don't see that being a problem. We've had a good turn
> out of votes
> >for Elves and Men (with only 4 stories, I think, having no votes--but
> >there's still Amnesty Day) and I anticipate a successful
> Awards program
> >this
> >year and thus a 2005 MEFAwards program next year.
> >
> >--Ainaechoiriel
> >MEFA Admin and Founder
> >
> >"This evil cannot be concealed by the power of the Elves,"
> Elrond said,
> >"for
> >it is Windows-compatible, and freeware at that." --H.F.
> >
> >http://gabrielle.sytes.net/mefa The Middle-Earth Fanfiction Awards
> >Blog: http://www.ainaechoiriel.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today
> - it's FREE!
> hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/wx3olB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks also to Elanor for her thoughts. I'll probably snip a lot here
because all I could say in reply is Yep! So I'll snip those parts and add a
comment here an there.

-----Original Message-----
From: dwimmer_laik [mailto:dwimmer_laik@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 10:49 AM
To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MEFAwards] On the objective fairness of awards--reply to White
Gull

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "M E" <SR_1420@h...> wrote:
> Thanks for your response, and yes, I did read before I joined. I
have also
> seen this done other places, not just online. I still had doubts as
to the
> accuracy of awards, but as I noted, I joined for the other benefit, of
> exposure. Maybe that's where the problem, if there is one, lies.
Many here
> must participate mainly for the reviews. Those who join mainly for
> the award will feel the voting system might be "unfair," as prompted
this suject
> in the first place. But, to join mainly for the reviews is flawed
as well,
> as if someone doesn't want you to win, they won't review your work,
and you
> won't benefit from their critique.

When Alt.StarTrek.Creative started the awards that was a concern. The
competition, I mean. The foudners wanted to steer away from competition and
toward feedback, subjugating the first to the second. I, personally, know
that I have a competitive streak. I loved winning the times that I did and
anxiously counted every other vote in my category to see how I was fairing
(I wasn't an official vote counter). So I fully admit there is a
competitive side to the MEFAs. But it is secondary. Even when I didn't win
at ASC, I treasured the comments I received. I keep all my feedback. I
still have every bit of it (that a computer didn't eat here or there).

And Dwim wrote, responding to the issue of silencing a story:
>But what is the likelihood of three, four, five, x many voters all
participating in a conspiracy of silence against one person's story?

That's the right point. The chances are low. Now, to say there is never
sneaky-handedness going on in the ASCs would be untrue. That's why I built
punishments for vote blocking and such (like being disqualified if you vote
as two different people--see the FAQ for these rules).

But think of this like an election here in the US. No one forces us to
vote. In a way, that's good. In a way it's not. We have a lot of
non-voting citizens. And we don't always like the two or three choices for
an office. We can either choose to vote for the least offensive or not
vote at all.

There are stories that I read that I didn't vote for. I won't name them.
And just so someone won't be encouraged to go through my votes and see which
stories I didn't vote on, I'll also say that I didn't read all the stories.
I read, for example, one for which I could think of nothing positive to say.
So I didn't.

Someone else, however, did like the same story and voted for it with a
comment.

Writing, especially creative writing, is subjective. What may be wonderful
to one may be rubbish to another.

>All you have to do is vote with fewer characters--you don't have to say
nothing at all--and then make sure you write more for the stories you think
are best. Proportionality is something you can jigger without committing
yourself to a refusal to vote for a story. And frankly, if someone is that
opposed to a story's winning, what is the likelihood of that person having
anything positive to say about the story in the first place, which is the
other part of the comment-based system designed to control for flames: keep
it positive; you're voting for stories you think are *good*, not the stories
you think are awful.

Exactly! And that has been hashed out here quite a bit. Negative or
constructive comments are counted just the same as positive ones. So if you
don't like a story, you should not comment on it. Otherwise it will get
points. Some have chosen (including myself) to put a short phrase [or not
so short paragraph] of constructive comment in their otherwise positive
comments. Still get counted just the same, but they know that going in.

And just like elections, we may not always be happy because our favored
candidate didn't win. Our favorite story may not win. But the winner is
the favorite of the *whole* group *who voted*. My story Osweicim (Star Tre:
DS9) is my proudest work. It won Best DS9 General Story in 1998. Not
everyone who voted on DS9 General stories thought it was the best. But
quite a few were completely wowed by it. Some wrote short comments. Others
wrote page-long comments. Some were so awed that they still comment on it
in the Author votes six years later! It won that category clearly. This
last year a friend of mine won Best DS9 General Story with what I felt was
an inferior story. I knew she could write better. I felt her
characterizations were off. It just wasn't up to her standard. I didn't vote
for it at all. It doesn't bother me that she won anyway. Enough others
liked it enough to give her the win. And she was encouraged greatly by
their comments, and even understanding of my silence.

It's not perfect. But then neither is popular vote. How many of the
thousands of Tolkien-based fanfic readers have read the story in question?
And how many of those knew about the awards in question? A story could win
that had never been read by a majority of those thousands of readers. Can
it really be called the "best?" And with the judging-based programs, who is
to say the judges are qualified to say which is the "best?"

With comment-based, we're all the judges with equal standing. No Staff
member's vote counts any differently than any other just plain old member.
And just to keep that on the up and up, we have 3 votes per category (still
have a few openings for a Third in 6-8 categories). We try to make it as
fair as possible *within* a medium that is subjective and thus no grounds
for absolute fairness.

>We know from experience that (2) happens for almost every story that gets
posted--see FF.net. At the same time, we know from personal experience
*coughcough* that many of us need some "motivation" to get off our rears and
write the darned review. (1) is the carrot to get us to do (2) in a timely
fashion. (1) is also the carrot that encourages us to read things we
normally wouldn't, in an effort to honor the idea of fair competition--as
fair as we can make it knowing that no one can have read *all* the stories
in the database, but that among the lot of us, every story should have been
read by at least the person who nominated the story, if not one other at
least.

Certainly is motivation! I checked out of LOTR fanfic for nearly two months
so I could read stories for the ASC awards and I read some good ones I
hadn't thought of reading before. I found a great author I hadn't noticed
before. I've read more stories in Elves and Men than I thought I had time
for with the MEFAs. And even some I hadn't planned on reading at all until
I read some of the comments. You get a flood of feedback out of me during
awards seasons. From March to May or so, you see that flood on
alt.startrek.creative. Now you'll see it here in September and October.
I'm a busy person, but knowing those awards are there and these awards are
here helped me make reading and feedback a priority, even if not *the*
priority in my busy life.

>At the same time, we know that (1) is an impossible evaluation, useful only
as an ideal limiting concept. In the first place, naturally, awards are
arguably *not* for the best story in the fandom: awards are for those
stories which actually participate.

And as determined by those who participate.

>I forget who in history said this, but this isn't an original argument. So
the best story objectively might not even have been nominated for any number
of reasons like its obscure host site, that its fans don't know of the
MEFAs, that it was written in Japanese, etc.

All true. There maybe a be an absolutely wonderful, no-doubt-about it,
perfect story out there that we just don't know about yet. Or maybe it will
get nominated next year but it's 102 chapters will discourage most readers
from getting to it.

It's the best of those that participate as decided by those that
participate.

>But also, remember that Tolkien disliked Shakespeare, the acknowledged
master of English prose. Tolkien also was not happy with W.H. Auden (I think
it was Auden) when Auden made acceptance of Tolkien's work his literary
taste pass-fail test. The lesson to take from this: that kind of objective
standard does not exist for a work of art, however derivative, and it is a
mistake to think that it does or that any award can say with finality that
is has identified *the* best stories in the fandom or even the indisputably
best story presented for evaluation. We know this. We also know that the two
standards most accepted--popular acclaim and judgment by those who have
assiduously cultivated their literary tastes--tend to give very different
results, and neither are perfect. It doesn't mean, however, that they are
meaningless.

Which is why it's great that anybody can just set up their own awards
however they want. Most of you are aware that I have quibbles with the
Mithrils, so I won't go into them here. But instead of sit and grumble
about the Mithrils, I started the MEFAs. There's room for a lot out here in
cyberspace. If anyone thinks they have a better way, they can start their
own awards program, just like I did. The ones who like it that way (or are
just competitive or open to all ways) will participate (if they hear about
it, have time and access, etc.).

I may have my quibbles but I still participated in the Mithrils by nominated
and voting in their Voter's Choice, even though I like my system better. It
truly is a free world here.

>>Dwim said: I look forward to the post-mortem, when we can go into
nitty-gritty detail on all these issues, but I think you said it best, White
Gull:


> Oh well, I think I'll just appreciate the good here, and not worry
about the
> rest.

Yes, that's the best way, at least for this first year! The reason the
Mithrils didn't go comment-based was because I was the only one espousing it
(when talk of the awards program that eventually became the Mitrils came up)
and no one else (but a few lurkers perhaps) had ever participated in it.
They had concerns, felt it would be too much like a popular vote, which they
distrusted, etc. There were questions here in April before Nomination
Season opened. I told people then what I'll tell everyone now:

You may just have to trust me this first year. I have had experience in
this kind of awards program, for 8 years or more! I know it can work. I
know it can be a positive experience. You may not be sure. You may have
doubts or fears. But you're hear. So trust me. Give it a try and see how
it works out for you.

Not everyone on ASC loves the Awards (thought the majority still does). We
can't please everyone. Some people have unsubscribed from the MEFAs. It
happens. We're not always everyone's cup of tea. But give it a try and see
if it's yours. You can always move on if not, or stay and dive in deeper
next year if it is.

>Insofar as the set up works to get voters to read and then to actually
vote, I think the system has succeeded, at least for those voters. So for
me, personally, the awards have succeeded. The power of a deadline is a
wonderous thing! ;-) So long as the voters are participating in good faith,
I think that's as much as can be asked. It'd be great if more readers and
authors would participate as voters, but hopefully turnout will increase
either in later categories or else next year.

That may well be the case. Yes only a minority of members voted in Men and
Elves. (Than happens at ASC, too.) Could be because of lurkdom or RL just
getting in the way (ASCers seemed particulary smacked by RL this year and
there were almost as many apologies for not voting as as there were votes.
(That is an exaggeration.)

But maybe, just maybe, those that find this is their cup of tea will love
the MEFAs and the word will get out even more for next year. And then we'll
have new members, trusting the veterans and giving it a try.

--Ainaechoiriel
MEFA Admin and Founder

"This evil cannot be concealed by the power of the Elves," Elrond said, "for
it is Windows-compatible, and freeware at that." --H.F.

http://gabrielle.sytes.net/mefa The Middle-Earth Fanfiction Awards
Blog: http://www.ainaechoiriel.blogspot.com

Thank you, and all others who've responded. That helps. I do like it here,
and really like getting to read so many good fics in one place.

Thanks.

WG

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

And we're glad to have you! I myself found myself with misty eyes over a
Hobbit story this afternoon. And I'm not real big on Hobbits, but here I am
reading Hobbit stories. That's what these awards do to me. ;-)

--Ainaechoiriel
MEFA Admin and Founder

"This evil cannot be concealed by the power of the Elves," Elrond said, "for
it is Windows-compatible, and freeware at that." --H.F.

http://gabrielle.sytes.net/mefa The Middle-Earth Fanfiction Awards
Blog: http://www.ainaechoiriel.blogspot.com



-----Original Message-----
From: M E [mailto:SR_1420@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 2:18 PM
To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [MEFAwards] On the objective fairness of awards--reply to White
Gull

Thank you, and all others who've responded. That helps. I do like it here,
and really like getting to read so many good fics in one place.

Thanks.

WG

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make
a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/wx3olB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

Just a quick note as this topic should really move on to the post-mortem:

I didn't read Alawa's poem. I'm not big into poetry. But you stanza-comment
would have made me want to read it more than the quote. If the summary
didn't interest me, I didn't go to it. I'd skip over reading the quote.
But the description that you wrote in the comment tells me why you think
it's great and makes me think maybe I should check out that poem.

And remember the comments here serve three purposes:
1) voting
2) feedback to the author
3) recommending fic to other readers

I've spoken about 1) before. I've spoken about 3) just there. But take a
look at 2). The writer already knows what she's written. She wants to know
why you like it. Concentrate more on #2 if that helps

--Ainaechoiriel
MEFA Admin and Founder

"This evil cannot be concealed by the power of the Elves," Elrond said, "for
it is Windows-compatible, and freeware at that." --H.F.

http://gabrielle.sytes.net/mefa The Middle-Earth Fanfiction Awards
Blog: http://www.ainaechoiriel.blogspot.com



-----Original Message-----
From: elanor of aquitania [mailto:elanor@codacode.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 5:03 AM
To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MEFAwards] apologies to writers/voters offended by quoting

> There is a certain logic to that. The author's words are showcased
> in the nomination itself. You can tell why the words are so powerful
> or evocative or whatever. But to quote a whole stanza of a poem is
> redundant. It showcases those words twice. And it very definitely
> does pad the vote. Though I know that was not your intent. Someone
> who's story comes in second or maybe fourth may be very unhappy to
> find that a story with large chunks of quoted text won the award.
> They might look up all the comments, count them themselves, and see
> that without those quoted chunks the winning story wouldn't have one
> and their story would have.

Hi Ainaechoiriel and dear offended writers or voters,

I can understand the anonymous voter's view though I do not agree with it.
For me showing is not worse than paraphrasing.
For me paraphrasing is ere worse than showing.

If you analyze a work of literature you quote the respective sentences, you
do not destroy the author's work by paraphrasing and by making it
unrecognizable.
At least I do not like to read secondary literature on literature where the
author's words are deemed unworthy to be cited.

The author's words are shown in the nominated text, yes.
But just the special sentences where the author achieved her/his outstanding
results are buried within the whole.
Showing these special achievements I meant with showcasing.

Example:
The quoted part of Alawa's poem is for me her highest achievement. And I
very much liked to showcase it.

Yet, the preferred procedure seems to be another.
For instance I should describe Alawa's stanza destroying all its beauty
thereby explaining why for me it is beautiful.
This seems to me to be counterproductive.

Offending words:
Best passage for me:
"in the stable steamed warm breathing
as welcome was heard from whickering horses.
Softly then she stroked their noses,
ran her hand over rump and wither,
keen were they to carry her.
Wildly we galloped in golden mist-shroud wind whipped hair as horses ran
free over fields followed the river spring's melt-water milk between
willows. "

This counts as 298 characters.

New words:
The best passage is for me the stanza-part "in the stable steamed warm
breathing . spring's melt-water milk between willows." where we find the
relationship of Rohirrim and their horses described in very beautiful words.
And Elfhild's joy of life is invoked in the reader's mind when Elfhild
strokes the horses' noses and husband and wife gallop through golden-tinted
mist. A very beautiful picture is raised in my mind by the words "spring's
melt-water milk".

This counts as 386 characters.

As we are discussing it already now,
is this kind of citing at least permissible or are we really only allowed to
write our own words ?

Should I write (this counts as 329 characters, also more characters than the
stanza-part itself):
The best passage is for me a part of the fifth stanza where we find the
relationship of Rohirrim and their horses described in very beautiful words.
And Elfhild's joy of life is invoked in the reader's mind when Elfhild
strokes the horses' noses and husband and wife gallop through golden-tinted
mist. A very beautiful picture is raised in my mind by the words which
describe the white melt-water.

So by describing or citing the beginning and end of the part of the stanza
and by recounting a few mind-pictures I need even more words.
For me this procedure is not as good
as that what I did by showcasing.

Nevertheless, as my view is an aberrant view I offer to rephrase my votes
which include quotes to avoid such unhappiness induced by quoted chunks.
But please advise me what you find acceptable.

Would that be to your liking ?
Should I send in those rephrased votes on Amnesty day ?

If this is too much work for the administrators, please you anonymous
writers who feel slighted by quoting accept my sincere apologies.

But know also that,
if quoting had not been allowed from the beginning, I would simply have
paraphrased the quotes (as I showed above probably leading to more
characters) with my own poor words to show the author what I liked most of
the work in discussion.
So please, dear writers, excuse my quoting and perhaps you can also a little
bit understand my view even if you do not agree with it.

> ;-) Okay. That will work because you'd have already hit the cap of 10
> points. But do try not to do this as others may see your quotes and
> think they'll quote a large chunk too, and not think about having a
> 10-point comment before they do. Set a good example.

I will abstain in future from quoting large chunks even in long votes to set
a good example.
And I offer to rephrase my offending votes.

With my apologies to all who thought my quoting quite undesirable Elanor
still preferring quoting to paraphrasing but accepting the majority's view




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/wx3olB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links