Yahoo Forum Archive

> I see that there's some discussion about the story length system,

>
> Personally, I feel that word counts are restrictive and confusing.

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> > I see that there's some discussion about the story length system,
> and I > agree that it needs to be reworked. So I'm going to put my
> $.02 out > there.
> >
> > Personally, I feel that word counts are restrictive and confusing.
> Most > authors know when their story has crossed the line from a
> short story > to something longer, but they may be. Therefore I
> suggest that we do > the following (if it's technically feasible).
>
>
> I think that first we need to define *why* they need to be
> categorized.
>
> Is it simply to allow the reader to budge their time?
> If so, I suggest going with word count.
>
> If it is to define sub-genre, plot arch and complexity of sub-plot,
> then I agree that other considers come into play and it is much more
> subjective.
>
> - until we decide 'why' - ...in what way we're dividing them, and
> for what reason, we're talking about apples and puppies.  Both are
> sweet and moist, and I suppose you could make a pie out of either...
> apples do grow fur, but you can see how some of these tests would put
> one or the other in an inappropriate category.
>
> Sulriel
>
>

>
> On 27 Jul 2005, at 14:46, sulriel wrote:> > > --- In

> > > I see that there's some discussion about the story length

> the following (if it's technically feasible).
> >
> >> > I think that first we need to define *why* they need to be
> > categorized.
> >> > > > - until we decide 'why' - ...in what way we're dividing

> Personally I think story length should be used for categorisation.

>
> On 27 Jul 2005, at 14:46, sulriel wrote:> > > --- In

> > > I see that there's some discussion about the story length

> the following (if it's technically feasible).
> >
> >> > I think that first we need to define *why* they need to be
> > categorized.
> >> > > > - until we decide 'why' - ...in what way we're dividing

> Personally I think story length should be used for categorisation.

> Time is an issue for me, and I'm much more likely to start and finish
> a short work than a long one.  I'm making notes and once I'm through
> the first wave of "can do's" -that is the shorter works that I can
> read and comment in one sitting, I'll go back and start working on
> the longer ones.  I know it's not 'fair', but it's the best I can do,
> and at least I am getting some reviews done each week.
>

> For that reason, mainly, I'd suggest going with a word count
> categorization so the longer works would only be competeing against
> each other, rather than being in a category with the shorter - one
> shot - works that more people will be reading , - or reading first.
>

> My 2 cents as an author. There's nothing more challenging than

> WIP succeeds in accomplishing these goals, I don't think I should

> GE

On 27 Jul 2005, at 15:22, ghettoelleth@aol.com wrote:

> My 2 cents as an author.  There's nothing more challenging  than
> writing a
> fully developed full-length fiction.  If I were the author  of a full
> length
> completed fic and found my competition to be a story of only  several
> chapters,
> whether a completed short story, or a wip, which my own  happens to
> be, I think
> I'd have to question the equity of comparing them.   The same goes
> for a
> short story being held up against a wip.  WIPs, imho,  are really
> nothing more
> than a promising beginning and should be judged on that  merit.  It
> is much
> easier to write ten chapters of character  development and set up an
> interesting
> premise than it is to actually  deliver a plot intriguing enough to
> carry a
> story through to a satisfying  conclusion.  Though I whole heartedly
> hope that my
> WIP succeeds in  accomplishing these goals, I don't think I should be
> allowed
> on the porch with  the big dogs until I've proven myself capable of
> walking
> the walk.   Just an opinion, I could be wrong.
> GE
>

I certainly see what you're saying here. In my opinion there's nothing
as challenging as telling a complete and engaging story in a short
number of words, but that's a point that's open to debate. I think we
both would agree there are different challenges with both, and that
comparing a 5,000-piece story to a 50,000 word story is like comparing
apples to orranges.

Just to be clear, though -- WIPs are already in their own subcategory.
There are three mandatory subcategories: drabbles, poetry, and WIPs.
This means that a drabble will only be competing against all the other
drabbles in that category, and similarly for WIPs and poetry. If there
aren't enough drabbles in a category, we move stories around until we
can make viable categories.

I still say it's not a good situation when you have novel-length things
running against vignettes. This is doubly the case when ficlets (often
double- and tripple-drabbles, stories of exactly 200 and 300 words) are
in the same category with novels. That's just not right, IMO. :-)

Thanks for your thoughts. It's great to hear what other folks think.

Out of curiosity, what do you (and Sulriel and anyone else) think of my
suggestion to have nominators provide only the basic information, and
to have authors provide the rest?

Marta
*****
Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>.> > Out of curiosity, what do you (and Sulriel and anyone else)

>

----- Original Message -----
From: Marta Layton
To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: concerning story lengths


I certainly see what you're saying here. In my opinion there's nothing
as challenging as telling a complete and engaging story in a short
number of words, but that's a point that's open to debate. I think we
both would agree there are different challenges with both, and that
comparing a 5,000-piece story to a 50,000 word story is like comparing
apples to orranges.

Just to be clear, though -- WIPs are already in their own subcategory.
There are three mandatory subcategories: drabbles, poetry, and WIPs.
This means that a drabble will only be competing against all the other
drabbles in that category, and similarly for WIPs and poetry. If there
aren't enough drabbles in a category, we move stories around until we
can make viable categories.

I still say it's not a good situation when you have novel-length things
running against vignettes. This is doubly the case when ficlets (often
double- and tripple-drabbles, stories of exactly 200 and 300 words) are
in the same category with novels. That's just not right, IMO. :-)

Thanks for your thoughts. It's great to hear what other folks think.

Out of curiosity, what do you (and Sulriel and anyone else) think of my
suggestion to have nominators provide only the basic information, and
to have authors provide the rest?

Marta
*****
Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



SPONSORED LINKS Book writing software Business writing book Writing book
Writing child book Writing a book Creative writing book


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "MEFAwards" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> >.> > Out of curiosity, what do you (and Sulriel and anyone else)
> think of my > suggestion to have nominators provide only the basic
> information, and > to have authors provide the rest?
> >
>
>
> <drags out well-worn soapbox and climbs back on>
>

> 1.  I think the nominator should provide a story title, URL and author
> contact information.
>

> 2.  it should generate an automatic mail that will tell the author:
>
> "You been nominated, we need you to:
> - verify eligibility
> - provide categorization information and choices"
>

> You must provide this information prior to 'cut-off' date.
>

> I found myself in a quandary last year - because I strongly believe in
> self-motivation and think if an author doesn't have enough desire to
> participate that they can click a couple of links, ...well, I'd rather
> give my votes to someone who's going to be more excited about it.
>

> so all this long mail means - yes -, I think the authors should be
> more involved in the choices, but I think that it needs to be
> simplified for them.  ..click on a link and make a couple of choice. -
> I don't know what's possible with the database, but I think that would
> help with both the categorization and the response percents.
>

----- Original Message -----
From: Marta Layton
To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: concerning story lengths



On 27 Jul 2005, at 15:54, sulriel wrote:

>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> >.> > Out of curiosity, what do you (and Sulriel and anyone else)
> think of my > suggestion to have nominators provide only the basic
> information, and > to have authors provide the rest?
> >
>
>
> <drags out well-worn soapbox and climbs back on>
>

Soap boxes are good. When we start building forts and entrenching in
positions, then we have a problem. But I'm all for hearing what people
think. :-)

> 1. I think the nominator should provide a story title, URL and author
> contact information.
>

I had proposed that the nominator also provide the summary, because I
think it would simplify things for the author (I would have to go look
up a summary at an archive, or write a new one). This isn't a crucial
point for me, though. If we think authors should provide the summary
I'm okay with that. I certainly agree on the rest of what you say the
nominator should provide.

> 2. it should generate an automatic mail that will tell the author:
>
> "You been nominated, we need you to:
> - verify eligibility
> - provide categorization information and choices"
>

For technical reasons I don't think the website can automtically send
emails. What it does now is it has a page for each story, with the text
of the email and a link to the author's email address. So a human has
to go in, copy the email from the webpage, click on the link, paste it
in an email, and hit send.

I do agree about the format, though. The email needs to be shorter than
it is now, with a clear statement of needs at the top. I think it will
help if we provide specific hyperlinks to webpages for more
information. That way the story's author can get a feel for what's
required of them at a glance, then go read the links if they need more
information

> You must provide this information prior to 'cut-off' date.
>

Oh yes, excellent idea. This gives closure to the whole process; it
lets us admins know "we can move on, this person isn't interested.

<snip>
> I found myself in a quandary last year - because I strongly believe in
> self-motivation and think if an author doesn't have enough desire to
> participate that they can click a couple of links, ...well, I'd rather
> give my votes to someone who's going to be more excited about it.
>

I understand where you're coming from on this. I think there are a lot
of authors out there who do first-rate work but are shy about
nominating themselves for awards. Or they just may not know about the
MEFAs. That's why I don't want to go to just self-nomination.

However. I agree with you that self-motivation is important, so I think
that we should rely on the authors more. Once their story has been
nominated and they know about the awards, the ball is in their court.
If they want the story to compete they should meet the admins half-way.

<snip>
> so all this long mail means - yes -, I think the authors should be
> more involved in the choices, but I think that it needs to be
> simplified for them. ..click on a link and make a couple of choice. -
> I don't know what's possible with the database, but I think that would
> help with both the categorization and the response percents.
>

I like your example of BarrowWight; it's a good one. And I do agree
that things need to be as simple as possible.

Just to be clear - which of the following two systems would you find
easier.

#1. Author Alice's story has been nominated. I (as her author liaison)
send her an email with a link to the website, where she can log in and
add the appropriate information. If she has questions or needs help she
can email me.

#2. Author Alice's story has been nominated. I send her an email with
the name of the story that has been nominated, and a list of the
information I need. She replies back to me with the information and I
enter it into the system for her.

Personally as an author liaison I would prefer system #2, as I can
guide the author through it more. It lets me address any questions they
have more easily, and it lets me spot if they aren't doing something
right. For example, if an author isn't sure whether a certain piece is
a ficlet or a vignette, in system 1 she would probably enter her best
guess, whereas in system 2 she's more likely to say "I think it's a
ficlet but I'm not sure- here's the situation- what do you think?

However, I'm all for whatever will be simplest for the author. What are
your thoughts?

Marta
*****
Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "MEFAwards" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ghettoelleth@aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 3:01 PM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: concerning story lengths
>
>
> In a message dated 7/27/2005 12:38:48 P.M. Pacific Standard
> Time, melayton@gmail.com writes:
>
> Out of curiosity, what do you (and Sulriel and anyone else)
> think of my suggestion to have nominators provide only the
> basic information, and to have authors provide the rest?
>
>
>
> Well, on several levels, I think its probably a good idea and
> perhaps could be taken even a step further. Since the
> voting is all done anonymously, maybe the nominations should
> be anonymous as well. This way when an author provides all
> their own information including synopsis, etc. the fic does
> not appear to be endorsed by anyone save for some anonymous
> elector. Like it or not, fair or not, I believe most people
> are influenced by the opinions of friends and those we
> admire, and knowing who nominated a fic may have a profound
> impact on the judging. On a more organic level, it just
> makes sense, especially for people who nominate a lot of
> fics, to have the authors work it out on their own. I mean,
> if we can manage a chapter, we can manage to fill out the
> form and figure, honestly, where our stories fit in,
> category-wise. Judging by today's conversation alone, a lot
> of thought has gone into creating the categories and it
> requires a rather intimate knowledge of one's own work to decide
> where it should be placed. Frankly, I don't know how you
> guys keep track of
> your voting beyond the drabbles let alone running this
> puppy. I'm really knew to the whole fanfic world and have
> been rather overwhelmed, afraid to mess someone up by doing
> the wrong thing. I just keep reading the e-mails and pray
> that when I'm ready to post reviews, I've grasped the
> concept clearly.
> And kudos to your programmer guy, I'd be in a coma by now.
> Jes
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Well, on several levels, I think its probably a good idea and 
> perhaps could
> be taken even a step further.  Since the voting is all done 
> anonymously,
> maybe the nominations should be anonymous as well. This way  when an
> author
> provides all their own information including synopsis, etc.  the fic
> does not appear
> to be endorsed by anyone save for some anonymous  elector.  Like it
> or not,
> fair or not, I believe most people are influenced  by the opinions of
> friends
> and those we admire, and knowing who nominated a  fic may have a
> profound
> impact on the judging. 

> On a more organic  level, it just makes sense, especially
> for people who nominate a lot of fics, to  have the authors work it
> out on
> their own.  I mean, if we can manage a  chapter, we can manage to
> fill out the
> form and figure, honestly, where our  stories fit in, category-wise. 

> Judging by
> today's conversation alone, a  lot of thought has gone into creating
> the
> categories and it requires a rather  intimate knowledge of one's own
> work to decide
> where it should be placed.  

> Frankly, I don't know how you guys keep track of
> your voting beyond the drabbles  let alone running this puppy.  I'm
> really
> knew to the whole fanfic world  and have been rather overwhelmed,
> afraid to mess
> someone up by doing  the wrong thing.  I just keep reading the
> e-mails and
> pray that  when I'm ready to post reviews, I've grasped the concept 
> clearly. 

> And kudos to your programmer guy, I'd be in a coma  by now.

On 28 Jul 2005, at 16:14, <aelfwina@cableone.net> wrote:

> Personally, I love long epic-length stories--*but* so far there are
> only *two* in the MEFAs this year that I have reviewed that I did not
> read previously. The other long ones I reviewed I had already read,
> and only needed to skim a bit to refresh my memory.  Like everyone
> else, I am going by the time I have to spend, and so of course, am
> targetting the shorter ones first.  I *have* read and reviewed some of
> the "shorter" long stories--10 chapters or less.
>

That makes a lot of sense. I'm sure everyone has their own preference,
and I don't want to get into splitting hairs over which more people
prefer. The key point to me is that some people prefer one form and
some people prefer other forms. And like you say, time available is a
major factor.

> I think word count would be useful in the story information. A word
> count in the story details, for example would give a good idea of the
> time it would take to read.
>

That's true. It would be nice to have an actual number that is not an
approximation (like having a story placed in novella, which you know is
supposed to be within a certain word range). But how do we handle cases
where no word count is known? Should this be an optional field, since
it's just for the reader's information and won't be used by the admins
to categorise?

> But for categorization purposes, I think that they should be divided
> up with  such things as vignettes, ficlets and short stories (which I
> would say would be four or five chapters or less) as short form; then
> novellas, say six to twenty chapters, and finally novels and epics as
> anything over twenty chapters.  Drabbles, I think, should still remain
> seperate, as drabbles, like poetry, have their own particular
> constraints.
>

I like the idea of using chapter numbers instead of word count for
categorisation purposes. And your scheme seems very reasonable. We can
hash this out in the post-mortem, but it's a good start.
]
> I think that this division should probably be done at the
> sub-category level rather than the main category, but that is just
> MPO, and not necessarily a very strongly held one.
>

Yes, definitely.. All of this is as a subcategory instead of a
category. At one point we considered making drabbles their own
category, but then we decided against it. I think that same reasoning
can be applied here.

> Another concern I have for next year, as far as reading time goes:
> this year's noms were double last year's--if the trend continues, next
> year we'll have close to 2,500 nominations, and the year after that...
>

I'm not sure that trend will continue. Presumably now people are
nominating not only the good stories from this year but also good ones
from previous years that weren't nominated before. Eventually (soon, I
think -- we may have hit it this year) we will reach a critical point
where we will have nominated most of the quality pieces from before the
awards started. I think in the future, the vast majority of nominations
will be from the last year, and so the numbers of nominations should be
smaller.

> Just post-mortem fodder...
>

Agreed. I am just putting some ideas out there for folks to think
about. No definite decisions will be made now, obviously. ;-) Just food
for thought.

Marta
*****
Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> However,  I'm all for whatever will be simplest for the author. What
> are
> your  thoughts?
>
>
> You know, I just don't hear this often enough around the  castle.  I'm
> posting this on my refrigerator.  After I blow it up to a  1,342 pt
> font.  :D
> jes
>

> I do think the notification email should be shorter and simpler, with,
> as you said, the crucial information at the top,

> most *particularly* the cut-off date. 

> This lets the author know that if they wish to participate, they
> cannot dally.  My only worry about this is that sometimes emails go
> astray. (I know a couple of my notifications got caught in my spam
> filter for example.)
>

> I do not like the idea of anonymous nominations.  I liked knowing
> *who* nominated my stories, and am comfortable with others knowing the
> stories *I* placed in nomination.  As to being "influenced" by *who*
> nominated something, I don't think so.  I rarely even pay attention to
> who the nominator is when I read the story.  About the only time is if
> I don't care for the story, I may go back and check afterwards.  I
> think that has only been about 3 times out of all the stories I've
> read.
>

> As for your two suggestions: I would say that #2 is my preference as
> well.  The author liaison presumably will know the system better, and
> for first-time nominees it might be a bit intimidating to be told to
> navigate the system alone.
>

>> I am of two minds about self-nomination. I am not real comfortable
>> myself with the idea of nominating my own stuff--I figure that if it
>> really deserves an award, then someone besides myself is sure to
>> notice. That said, I was at one point tempted to nominate a couple
>> of my lesser noticed stories just for the feedback. I ended up not
>> doing it mainly because I was waiting to see if someone else would
>> nom them instead, and then it was too late.

>> I do not like the idea of anonymous nominations. I liked knowing
>> *who* nominated my stories, and am comfortable with others knowing
>> the stories *I* placed in nomination. As to being "influenced" by
>> *who* nominated something, I don't think so. I rarely even pay
>> attention to who the nominator is when I read the story. About the
>> only time is if I don't care for the story, I may go back and check
>> afterwards. I think that has only been about 3 times out of all the
>> stories I've read.

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
<snip>

> While I'm thinking about categorisation, here's another thing I've
> had mentioned to me a few times. Some of the subcategories are
> counter-intuitive. What exactly is the difference between
> "Rohan/Romance" and "Romance/Rohan"? I personally think things would
> be simpler all around if we cut down on the number of categories.

This year the Rohan category was created even *before* all the
categories were done. I think it is smarter and practical to wait with
this untill the categorisers were done. I think we could have had a
Shire category in that case.

> Have the author select at least one genre, one book/time, and one
> races/places category. Then sort into categories based on *one* of
> those things not all three like we do now. If for instance we put
> all of the romances in one category we could then make appropriate
> subcategories based on length and on the other two suggested
> categories (races/places, book/times).

This year I kept a close eye on the categories that were selected for
the authors assigned to me. If there were questions I explained them
that all three options were the categories that the story could run
in. The first category was the most preferred one, if that couldn't
run, then the second and so on.

> The only problem with this idea that I can foresee is what to do
> with one of the mandatory subcategories where there aren't enough to
> make it viable. Let's say there are only four adventure WIPs
> nominated. Then we go back to the author with a choice: choose
> another category, or withdraw it. If the author chooses to withdraw
> the nomination it will be eligible again next year.

No, that doesn't need to be adjusted. As long if you explain why you
have to choose three, then the author does understand the why and how.
Yes the nomination e-mail wasn't that clear about it.

Regarding the story length and the liaison's role in it. I checked the
story lenght for all my stories/authors assigned to me before I send
out the nomination e-mail.

Yes there are stories with 19 chapters, but the word count fit in the
story length short story, so I let it be. Maybe it is an idea to add a
different story type next year named Story, that sits in between
Short Story and Novella.

Like Sulriel btw, I do plot and scheme a tale also based on the
lenght. If I know I want to write a ficlet/vignette or a story, then I
adjust everything for it. But maybe that has to do with competition
experience.

But the liaison should advise and check information: but not making
decisions about a nomination. The author knows their material the best
and can use the liaison assigned to ask questions. Don't forget that
all the liaisons are doing this on a voluntary basis and it became
much more then the simple cut and paste job. If you want to do them
more next year, I don't know if volunteers have that much free time to
do so. I rather remain realistic about it.

Just my 2 eurocents

Rhapsody

>
> On 28 Jul 2005, at 16:48, <aelfwina@c...> wrote:
>

>> This lets the author know that if they wish to participate, they
>> cannot dally. My only worry about this is that sometimes emails go
>> astray. (I know a couple of my notifications got caught in my spam
>> filter for example.)
>
>
> Here's an idea. Let's say we give an author two weeks to at least
> touch base with their liaison. (If they're still working with their
> liaison on some of the story details, that's okay; but we need to at
> least have heard from them.) If after two weeks the author has not
> contacted the liaison, the liaison should email the nominator. For
> example,

> Yes, that's my feeling. One thing that caused a lot of delay this
> year was that an author would make corrections, even note that they
> approved of the nomination in the comment field, but the liaison
> wouldn't know to finalise the nomination.

On 27 Jul 2005, at 16:52, Ainaechoiriel wrote:

<snip>
> As for categorizing that is the biggest part of post-mortem, trust
> me!  I
> first provided the three topics because there are three different
> ways to
> categorize. Some people see their stories as Elf stories.  Some see
> them as
> Silm stories.  Some see them as Romance stories.  Race, Book, Genre. 
>

I see what you're saying here, Ainae. I'm wondering, though, if there's
a better way to provide this information.

I'm looking at the list of winners for the 2004 winners of the ASCs,
the awards that you claim as the chief inspiration for the MEFAs
(http://trekiverse.us/ASCAwards/ASC_2003_Awards.txt ). From what I can
tell, they are categorised into main categories by series (ENT, TOS,
TNG, DS9, VOY, and miscellaneous). Obviously each story will only fit
in one category -- so all the stories about TNG will be in that one
category and can be subcategorised appropriately. Right now, a dramatic
gapfiller about Legolas during the Ring War could be in drama, but it
could also be in Elves or Lord of the Rings. I think this is what
people find confusing, and what makes our job as categorisers so
difficult.

This is why I suggest that for categorisation purposes we use Book/Time
*or* Genre *or* Races/Places.

Now, this isn't to say that the other information shouldn't be
available to readers. Just that we don't have to build categories
around it. One way to do this would be to add filters to the list of
stories. If this is technically feasible, you could filter by genre
just as you can filter by other things now. It would be similar to
filtering by first, second, or third choices during nomination season.

> Why not sub?  Because I'd like to know the Elf story I'm looking at
> is a
> Legolas story or not a Romance.  I want to know something about the
> story
> before I even care about it's length. It bothered me this year in the
> ASC
> Awards that Archer/Reed slash was right in there with plain old
> no-subcategory ENT General stories.  I'd just rather steer clear
> whether
> they were novels or drabbles.
>

I understand this point, and I agree! But surely this is why we have
warnings and summaries? If a story is about Legolas he should be
mentioned in the summary. (We could maybe even filter by this, again if
it's technically feasible. Authors could provide, say, 3-4 major
characters, and then the reader could filter by stories that are listed
as featuring that category.)

<snip>
> Don't bother with too much discussion about this now. Just mull it
> over for
> the later.
>

I agree. If you don't want to respond to this now you don't have to.
It's just food for thought at this point.

Marta
*****
Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> -- <aelfwina@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> I am of two minds about self-nomination. I am not real comfortable
>>> myself with the idea of nominating my own stuff--I figure that if it
>>> really deserves an award, then someone besides myself is sure to
>>> notice. That said, I was at one point tempted to nominate a couple
>>> of my lesser noticed stories just for the feedback. I ended up not
>>> doing it mainly because I was waiting to see if someone else would
>>> nom them instead, and then it was too late.
>
> Ditto over here on the comfort scale. Last year I refused to nominate
> anything I had either written or betaed because I was too nervous to
> recommend stuff that I'd had a hand in creating. This year I decided
> to be a bit braver, but it was still a terrifying process. I think
> self-nomination is a great idea, especially for new authors or for
> fics that flew in under the radar, but I think outside nomination is
> important, too.
>

> I was pulling for the option of having anonymous nominations when this
> subject came up last year. I do like knowing who nominated my stories
> and I don't have a problem letting others know what I nominated, but
> for those who are shy about nominating, why not give them the option?
>

On 27 Jul 2005, at 17:40, rhapsody_the_bard wrote:

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > While I'm thinking about categorisation, here's another thing I've
> > had mentioned to me a few times. Some of the subcategories are
> > counter-intuitive. What exactly is the difference between
> > "Rohan/Romance" and "Romance/Rohan"? I personally think things would
> > be simpler all around if we cut down on the number of categories.
>
> This year the Rohan category was created even *before* all the
> categories were done. I think it is smarter and practical to wait with
> this untill the categorisers were done. I think we could have had a
> Shire category in that case.
>

Good point. I think that would be a smart idea for next year.

<snip>
> Regarding the story length and the liaison's role in it. I checked the
> story lenght for all my stories/authors assigned to me before I send
> out the nomination e-mail.
>

I didn't do that this year, but I think I should have. I will certainly
do that if I help out next year.

> Yes there are stories with 19 chapters, but the word count fit in the
> story length short story, so I let it be. Maybe it is an idea to add a
> different story type next year named Story, that sits in between
> Short Story and Novella.
>

I like that idea, There does seem to be some area between what I would
consider a short story and what I would consider a novella.

<snip>
> But the liaison should advise and check information: but not making
> decisions about a nomination. The author knows their material the best
> and can use the liaison assigned to ask questions.

Sure, I agree with that.

> Don't forget that
> all the liaisons are doing this on a voluntary basis and it became
> much more then the simple cut and paste job. If you want to do them
> more next year, I don't know if volunteers have that much free time to
> do so. I rather remain realistic about it.
>

Good point. During the post-mort, I'm sure we'll have to winnow through
good ideas and decide what we can do and what we can't do.

Marta
*****
Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rhapsody_the_bard
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 4:41 PM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MEFAwards] Re: concerning story lengths
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > While I'm thinking about categorisation, here's another
> thing I've had
> > mentioned to me a few times. Some of the subcategories are
> > counter-intuitive. What exactly is the difference between
> > "Rohan/Romance" and "Romance/Rohan"? I personally think
> things would
> > be simpler all around if we cut down on the number of categories.
>
> This year the Rohan category was created even *before* all
> the categories were done. I think it is smarter and practical
> to wait with this untill the categorisers were done. I think
> we could have had a Shire category in that case.
>
> > Have the author select at least one genre, one book/time, and one
> > races/places category. Then sort into categories based on *one* of
> > those things not all three like we do now. If for instance
> we put all
> > of the romances in one category we could then make appropriate
> > subcategories based on length and on the other two suggested
> > categories (races/places, book/times).
>
> This year I kept a close eye on the categories that were
> selected for the authors assigned to me. If there were
> questions I explained them that all three options were the
> categories that the story could run in. The first category
> was the most preferred one, if that couldn't run, then the
> second and so on.
>
> > The only problem with this idea that I can foresee is what
> to do with
> > one of the mandatory subcategories where there aren't
> enough to make
> > it viable. Let's say there are only four adventure WIPs nominated.
> > Then we go back to the author with a choice: choose another
> category,
> > or withdraw it. If the author chooses to withdraw the nomination it
> > will be eligible again next year.
>
> No, that doesn't need to be adjusted. As long if you explain
> why you have to choose three, then the author does understand
> the why and how.
> Yes the nomination e-mail wasn't that clear about it.
>
> Regarding the story length and the liaison's role in it. I
> checked the story lenght for all my stories/authors assigned
> to me before I send out the nomination e-mail.
>
> Yes there are stories with 19 chapters, but the word count
> fit in the story length short story, so I let it be. Maybe it
> is an idea to add a different story type next year named
> Story, that sits in between Short Story and Novella.
>
> Like Sulriel btw, I do plot and scheme a tale also based on
> the lenght. If I know I want to write a ficlet/vignette or a
> story, then I adjust everything for it. But maybe that has to
> do with competition experience.
>
> But the liaison should advise and check information: but not
> making decisions about a nomination. The author knows their
> material the best and can use the liaison assigned to ask
> questions. Don't forget that all the liaisons are doing this
> on a voluntary basis and it became much more then the simple
> cut and paste job. If you want to do them more next year, I
> don't know if volunteers have that much free time to do so. I
> rather remain realistic about it.
>
> Just my 2 eurocents
>
> Rhapsody
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>> > I was pulling for the option of having anonymous nominations when
>> this
>> > subject came up last year. I do like knowing who nominated my
>> stories
>> > and I don't have a problem letting others know what I nominated,
>> but
>> > for those who are shy about nominating, why not give them the
>> option?
>> >

>> That's an interesting idea. Thundera, am I understanding correctly
>> that the nominator has the option of having their name displayed or
>> not? Like there's a little check-box on the nomination form, and if
>> you check that the nominator is listed as "Anonymous", or something
>> like that?
>>
>> I like it because it adds flexibility.

>Here's an idea. Let's say we give an author two weeks to at least touch
>base with their liaison. (If they're still working with their liaison
>on some of the story details, that's okay; but we need to at least have
>heard from them.) If after two weeks the author has not contacted the
>liaison, the liaison should email the nominator.

> I see what you're saying here, Ainae. I'm wondering, though,
> if there's a better way to provide this information.
>
> I'm looking at the list of winners for the 2004 winners of
> the ASCs, the awards that you claim as the chief inspiration
> for the MEFAs
> (http://trekiverse.us/ASCAwards/ASC_2003_Awards.txt ). From
> what I can tell, they are categorised into main categories by
> series (ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and miscellaneous).

> Obviously each story will only fit in one category -- so all
> the stories about TNG will be in that one category and can be
> subcategorised appropriately. Right now, a dramatic gapfiller
> about Legolas during the Ring War could be in drama, but it
> could also be in Elves or Lord of the Rings. I think this is
> what people find confusing, and what makes our job as
> categorisers so difficult.
>
> This is why I suggest that for categorisation purposes we use
> Book/Time
> *or* Genre *or* Races/Places.

>
> Now, this isn't to say that the other information shouldn't
> be available to readers. Just that we don't have to build
> categories around it. One way to do this would be to add
> filters to the list of stories. If this is technically
> feasible, you could filter by genre just as you can filter by
> other things now. It would be similar to filtering by first,
> second, or third choices during nomination season.

> I understand this point, and I agree! But surely this is why
> we have warnings and summaries?

> If a story is about Legolas
> he should be mentioned in the summary. (We could maybe even
> filter by this, again if it's technically feasible. Authors
> could provide, say, 3-4 major characters, and then the reader
> could filter by stories that are listed as featuring that category.)

> I agree. If you don't want to respond to this now you don't have to.
> It's just food for thought at this point.