Yahoo Forum Archive

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Marta
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 11:35 PM
> To: mefawards@yahoogroups.com
> 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@gmail.com 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 nominations 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 processed.
>
> 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?
>
> Marta
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite
> Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/wx3olB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Just one thought right now. 6 wouldn't work if people self-nominate
> because
> they can't self-vote.
>
> --Ainaechoiriel
> MEFA Admin and Founder
>

> 1. Limit the number of nominations, period. Once we reach this cap no more
> nominations
> 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
> processed.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marta" <melayton@gmail.com>
To: <mefawards@yahoogroups.com>
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@gmail.com 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
> nominations
> 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
> processed.
>
> 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?
>
> Marta
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: <aelfwina@cableone.net>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Post-Mortem Topic #1: Number of Nominations


(So
> one could nom nine short stories, and up to six drabbles and/or poems).

Well, not just short stories obviously--I meant *stories*. I did not meant
to exclude novels, novellas, etc.

Posting at 2 in the morning because I can't sleep=fuzzy thinking.
Dreamflower


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marta" <melayton@gmail.com>
> To: <mefawards@yahoogroups.com>
> 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@gmail.com 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
>> nominations
>> 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
>> processed.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Marta
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> I like a combination of 1 and 4 (Limiting the total number of
> nominations and the number of nominations per week/time period). I
> like spreading the nominations out over the whole nominating season,
> because it will give a wider group of people the chance to nominate
> stories too. (Like instead of me nominating all of Author A's
> stories in the first week, if I'm limited, then it might
> allow/encourage someone new to the program to nominate some of A's
> stories too.)

> I think entering a vote before the nomination can be processed might
> be too intimidating to newcomers to the program, and that will put a
> barrier up as far as encouraging people to get involved. This
> process is already different enough that it causes people to shy
> away, I'd hate to put another roadblock in the way.

> I also sort of like nominating stories written in the last
> year...BUT...I do think that would cut out a lot of deserving
> stories. I'm not comfortable with the thought that just because a
> story was written 2 years ago, it doesn't deserve some recognition.
> (On the other hand, if there are stories that were written 3 or 4
> years ago, you run the risk of the author being out of the fandom
> and it doesn't seem fair to keep giving them awards when they are
> not involved anymore).

>
> 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.

> There have been several suggestions:
>
> 1. Limit the number of nominations, period. Once we reach this cap

> are allowed.

> 2. Limit the number of nominations per person.

> 5. Limit nominations to pieces written this year.

> 6. Require the nominator to enter a vote for the story before the

> processed.

>>> 1. Limit the number of nominations, period. Once we reach this

> 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.

> 5. Limit nominations to pieces written this year.
> 6. Require the nominator to enter a vote for the story before the

>
> besides which, I could always write> a "placeholder"--"I will review

----- Original Message -----
From: "sulriel" <Sulriel@htcomp.net>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:05 AM
Subject: [MEFAwards] Re: Post-Mortem Topic #1: Number of Nominations


> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@y...>
> wrote:>> > 6. Require the nominator to enter a vote for the story
> before the> nomination can be > > processed.
>>
>> besides which, I could always write> a "placeholder"--"I will review
> this later"--just to be able to> nominate a story, but that doesn't
> serve the purpose of this> particular limitation and would create more
> work for the staff, who> would have to physically check every
> nomination's initial review.
>
>
> the way this should work, in my mind, if the intial review
> automatically went in as a draft or tentative, it could be something
> like "great plot", "favorite kiddie!aragorn story" and be updated
> later if the nominater was pressed for time during nomination
> season. - would that help, or do you think it would negate the
> purpose?
>
> Sulriel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

> the way this should work, in my mind, if the intial review
> automatically went in as a draft or tentative, it could be something
> like "great plot", "favorite kiddie!aragorn story" and be updated
> later if the nominater was pressed for time during nomination
> season. - would that help, or do you think it would negate the
> purpose?
>
> Sulriel
>

>
> I really feel #6 should not be necessary for limiting the number of
> nominations. If a person likes a story well enough to nominate it,
> then the first thing they should do is enter at least a draft or
> tentative vote for it--I know I did. If people are not allowed to
> nominate dozens of stories, then they would have time to vote for
> the ones they nominated.

> With #2, in which the nominators are limited to a reasonable number
> of nominations, they should then have time to enter those reviews.
> And I think an upper limit of 25 or so is too high. That may
> actually have the effect of *increasing* the number of nominations,
> as new members may feel obligated to nominate their limit. I
> honestly think 10 to 12 nominations (with the extension for
> drabbles/poetry I mentioned in my previous post) would have
> the right effect. People who nominated 2 or 3 dozen stories in the
> past would then have to consider just which they *really* wanted to
> nominate; people who nominated only a couple of stories might be
> encouraged to do a few more this time round. I know that I
> nominated, I think, 8 or 9 stories, and I spent a good deal of time
> thinking over which ones. I thought maybe I was going overboard
> until I saw how many stories other people were nominating.

> I am very much against going to the category thing with time limits.
> We did that the first year, and I found it extremely confusing, I
> could never keep track of what category was which week, even with
> the reminders, which tended to clutter up my email and get caught in
> my spam trap.

----- Original Message -----
From: <ghettoelleth@aol.com>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: Post-Mortem Topic #1: Number of Nominations



I really, really like the idea of requiring an explanation or
justification,
if you will, for nominations. If everyone is required to think about why
they are nominating a certain work, not many will be submitting because
they
feel obligated to nominate someone based upon anything other than the
quality
of the work. Its easy to submit a name because you feel a certain
loyalty,
not so easy when you are held accountable for telling people why you
support
that work at this level.

The thing is, that the reasons need to be the votes. In a review based
system *all* votes, not just those by the nominators, need to be justified.
You cant simply put in something along the lines of: I like hobbits, and
this is a hobbit story, and this author is my favorite, and shes a friend
of mine, so Im reviewing this. Well, I suppose you could, and it would
count as so many characters, but I dont know anyone who would not be
embarrassed to put such a thing out there for everyone to see, LOL! So, even
if those are your reasons for nominating, when you vote, you actually have
to *think* about the merits of the story *as* story. At any rate, it seems
as if your proposal would cause the nominator to have to review twice, so to
speak.


I thought about what would happen if these awards were constructed more
akin
to the academy awards. I heard a lot of people mentioning that they stick
within certain categories and unless they have surplus voting time they
concentrate on reading and voting for stories within a certain genre.
There is
nothing wrong with this, I think its admirable to be loyal and supportive
of
your particular preference. But if this is generally the case then setting
the
nominations up like the ampas makes sense.

I dont think that would work here. I am primarily a hobbit fancier. Yet I
recently read an Elf story that I thought was superb. Its not my usual
genre, yet I might very well think it worth a MEFA nomination next year. If
I were told that my only nominations could be in hobbits, then that story
might not get nominated. The idea of MEFA is to generate feedback and to
encourage diversity.

Its true I voted *first* for the hobbit stories--that *is* my preference,
after all. But as I began to run out of them, I branched out and read any
number of other stories: Men, Elves, Dwarves, the Silm. Now I know you are
not saying people cant vote out of their categories, but Im afraid thats
what a lot of people would take it as.



What they do is every year they
develop the categories anew, thus keeping them timely and in tune with what
is
happening in the industry. Once this is done, nominations are made
strictly
from within each category. Meaning that only members of the directors
guild may nominate in the directors categories, sag members actors
categories,
etc. However, final voting for the MEFAs could be done with everyone able
to vote for any store they chose, whereas in the ampas, the only categories
open for voting by the entire academy are best picture actor/actress and
director. So its sort of akin to a political election I guess, primaries
deciding
who will run are voted on from within each party, final elections allow you
to
vote across party lines. I dont know if this would work for MEFAs, just
a
thought to cut down on excessive nominations.

It might *work* but it would change the MEFAs into something altogether
different than what they are.

Dreamflower


Jes


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





Yahoo! Groups Links

> I like a combination of 1 and 4  (Limiting the total number of
> nominations and
> the number of nominations per week/time period).
>

> I think entering a vote before the nomination can be processed might
> be too
> intimidating to newcomers to the program, and that will put a barrier
> up as far
> as encouraging people to get involved.

> I also sort of like nominating stories written in the last
> year...BUT...I do
> think that would cut out a lot of deserving stories.

> (On the other hand, if there are stories that were
> written 3 or 4 years ago, you run the risk of the author being out of
> the
> fandom and it doesn't seem fair to keep giving them awards when they
> are not
> involved anymore).
>

> 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.

> If you are concerned about drabbles (and possibly poetry), perhaps
> have an additional cap

> Why nom something you have no intention of voting for?

> But I can see how that would be problematical with self-nominated
> stories...

----- Original Message -----
From: "rhapsody_the_bard" <rhapsody74@gmail.com>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:59 AM
Subject: [MEFAwards] Re: Post-Mortem Topic #1: Number of Nominations


> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, <aelfwina@c...> wrote:
>>
>> I really feel #6 should not be necessary for limiting the number of
>> nominations. If a person likes a story well enough to nominate it,
>> then the first thing they should do is enter at least a draft or
>> tentative vote for it--I know I did. If people are not allowed to
>> nominate dozens of stories, then they would have time to vote for
>> the ones they nominated.
>
> Well I just assume that a nominator carefully thought about it, so
> even leaving a note doesn't feel necessary to me.

That's what I thought to begin with.
>
>> With #2, in which the nominators are limited to a reasonable number
>> of nominations, they should then have time to enter those reviews.
>> And I think an upper limit of 25 or so is too high. That may
>> actually have the effect of *increasing* the number of nominations,
>> as new members may feel obligated to nominate their limit. I
>> honestly think 10 to 12 nominations (with the extension for
>> drabbles/poetry I mentioned in my previous post) would have
>> the right effect. People who nominated 2 or 3 dozen stories in the
>> past would then have to consider just which they *really* wanted to
>> nominate; people who nominated only a couple of stories might be
>> encouraged to do a few more this time round. I know that I
>> nominated, I think, 8 or 9 stories, and I spent a good deal of time
>> thinking over which ones. I thought maybe I was going overboard
>> until I saw how many stories other people were nominating.
>
> I nominated about 39, and I all reviewed them. Actually, I made sure I
> had those done at the very least, so 25 makes me wonder... is that
> enough? Because I read a lot and tried to nominate lesser known
> authors. I am just wondering if some nominators went 'overboard' and
> others nominated about a certain average. That is why I am curious
> about numbers. But you can't prevent what people will think when the
> see a limit on something (if it is number of stories allowed to
> nominate, word count and so on). Even if it is 10, 25 or 50.

Well, if the idea is to keep the numbers down, we have to consider that at
least a little bit. I recall at some point mentioning limits before, and
someone replied that they felt that as time went on the awards would become
self-limiting. But I am afraid I don't see that, and at this point in time,
do we really want to risk next year's noms perhaps doubling? or even half
again as many? I know the amount of work you put in as a liaison (you did a
great job, by the way) but do you want to risk that work load doubling next
year?

At any rate, if the idea is to put the limit at as high as 25, then we may
need to limit the number of new members we take--and *that* is a can of
worms I *definitely* would *not* like to see opened!

It was good that some of the people who nominated many stories did vote on
all of them, but a good many did not. However *requiring* a vote to
finalize seems to me to cause as many problems as it solves. As I said,
with a lower limit, everyone should have plenty of time to vote on their
noms.

>
>> I am very much against going to the category thing with time limits.
>> We did that the first year, and I found it extremely confusing, I
>> could never keep track of what category was which week, even with
>> the reminders, which tended to clutter up my email and get caught in
>> my spam trap.
>
> Well since this was my first MEFA, I possibly could not have known
> that this happened in the first year (and also I don't know how it
> happened). I am just saying this because while categorising we saw
> categories that had barely made a full category (Poetry about Dwarves
> were re-located). And well, this years nominations went differently, I
> guess, so I don't see the cluttering of e-mails happening. It is just
> the amount of work behind the scenes that just was a lot (talking
> about a huge amount of stress and time limit). It truly was a high
> peak, if you can spread that.. well it makes life a lot easier. For
> the admin/volunteers at least.
>
Last year, each category had a "season" during which nominations could be
made, and a "season" for voting on those categories. As I said, I found it
very confusing; I made no nominations and I think I only voted on about 5 or
6 stories, because it was just overwhelming. Just as I would think I'd have
time to vote on something, its "season" would be over. And with all the
categories and sub-categories we had this year, to get all of them in, the
"seasons" would have to be extremely short.

I found the open system this year to be far more user-friendly, and the
result was I made several nominations and was able to review a good many
more stories than last year.

Dreamflower

> Rhapsody
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
>
> Hi Larian,
>
> > I like a combination of 1 and 4  (Limiting the total number of
> > nominations and
> > the number of nominations per week/time period).
> >
>
> The more I think about it, the less sure I am about this option. I
can
> see the plus sides of it, and it's definitely something to keep in
mind
> as a possibility. But I think having an over-all limit on the
number of
> nominations would favor those people who nominate early. It also
might
> encourage people to nominate stories they are unsure about earlier
on
> because they aren't sure if they'll have the chance to later.
>
> How would you feel about limiting the number of nominations per
> nominator rather than overall? I think that would have the same
effect
> since there's a limited number of people making nominations, but
would
> mean everyone gets a more equal chance to nominate.
>
> > I think entering a vote before the nomination can be processed
might
> > be too
> > intimidating to newcomers to the program, and that will put a
barrier
> > up as far
> > as encouraging people to get involved.
>
> Is this something we can overcome by how we phrase things, or how
we
> set up the form? For example, we might have a form on the field
that
> says something like:
>
> "Tell us what you like about this story. If you are not also the
author
> of this story, this will be entered into a tentative review for you
> (which you can change later if you like). This does not need to be
> particularly long; a sentence or two will do."
>
> Also, I think the nomination process will be much simpler this year
for
> the nominator. We'll try to nail this down later, but I think the
> nominator will only provide title, author, author's email, story
link,
> and possibly the summary. The author will provide things like
> categories and rating themselves.
>
> > I also sort of like nominating stories written in the last
> > year...BUT...I do
> > think that would cut out a lot of deserving stories.
>
> I understand that feeling. I think I've nominated most of the
stories I
> know of that weren't written this last year, but I understand
others
> may still know of some very nice older stories they want to
nominate.
> I'm not too crazy about this idea, personally.
>
> Now seems like a good time to say that the options I presented
aren't
> all ones that I would necessarily choose if it was just my
decision.
> They're ideas that have been proposed in emails I've received, and
I
> want to know what other people think.
>
> > (On the other hand, if there are stories that were
> > written 3 or 4 years ago, you run the risk of the author being
out of
> > the
> > fandom and it doesn't seem fair to keep giving them awards when
they
> > are not
> > involved anymore).
> >
>
> We actually did have a few authors say that they weren't involved
in
> this fandom anymore and so they didn't want their stories to
compete.
> Also, if the email address we have isn't currently checked by the
> author, it's entirely possible we won't hear from them at all. We
can
> probably phrase the email sent to authors when their stories are
> nominated in such a way that it makes it clear to the author that
the
> MEFAs are available to everyone, but there's no compulsion to
compete
> if you aren't active in the fandom (or would rather not compete for
any
> reason).
>
> Thanks for your thoughts, Larian!
>
> Cheers,
> Marta
>

> In considering the options, I've taken a rather cynical approach to
> thinking about how people might "rig the system" in their favour.

> 1. Limit the number of nominations, period. Once we reach this cap no
> more nominations are allowed.
>
> I think this is a poor idea because it risks unbalancing the awards in
> favour of a small number of authors.

> 2. Limit the number of nominations per person.
>
> I quite like this idea for two reasons.

> If we consider this the way forward, I think we need some real
> discussion around what limits we apply.
>

> 3. Limit the number of nominations in a time period.
>
> This suffers to some extent from the same problem as #1 - one or two
> nominators could take up most of the available nominations (and keep
> doing that at the start of every time period). Liable to lead to
> frustration and snarkiness from everyone else....
>

> 4. Limit the number of nominations in a time period per person. (i.e.,
> you can nominate, a certain number of pieces per week.)
>
> <snip>
> I think this might allow higher overall limits than in #2. The overall
> limit in #2 and #4 is actually set by the number of nominators - more
> nominators = more stories.

> 5. Limit nominations to pieces written this year.
>
> Given the MEFAs have only been running a couple of years, I don't like
> this idea at all.

> I'm coming down in favour of #4. If that's too complicated to code, I
> would then favour #2, which is a technically simpler version of the
> same thing. But I would also like if possible to incorporate some
> element of #6 to address the issue of a nominated story receiving no
> reviews.
>

On 1 Nov 2005, at 04:47, rhapsody_the_bard wrote:

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Marta" <melayton@g...> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Just a small note Marta, today NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writers
> Month) started, and I know a lot of authors that are participating, so
> maybe the responses are less because of it.
>
> Rhapsody
>

That's a good point! I had forgotten about NaNoWriMo since I'm not
participating myself.

I hope those people who are involved will be able to make the time to
write a short note on their thoughts. I understand if they can't,
though.

Marta

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Marta" <melayton@g...> wrote:
>
> 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@g... 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 nominations
> 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
> processed.
>
> 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?
>
> Marta
>

> Bottom line, let's try to keep the MEFAs fair, inclusive, and
> simple. If we lose those qualities, I think participation will
> decrease.
>
> Kathy (Inkling)

> 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.

> Hi Larian,
>
> > I like a combination of 1 and 4 (Limiting the total number of
> > nominations and
> > the number of nominations per week/time period).
> >
>
> The more I think about it, the less sure I am about this option. I can
> see the plus sides of it, and it's definitely something to keep in mind
> as a possibility. But I think having an over-all limit on the number of
> nominations would favor those people who nominate early. It also might
> encourage people to nominate stories they are unsure about earlier on
> because they aren't sure if they'll have the chance to later.
>
> How would you feel about limiting the number of nominations per
> nominator rather than overall? I think that would have the same effect
> since there's a limited number of people making nominations, but would
> mean everyone gets a more equal chance to nominate.

> An idea that I'm much more comfortable with is a chapter cap. I'm not
> sure how this would work out practically, but perhaps the author could
> be limited to nominating 50 chapters. This could be 5 10-chapter
> pieces, or 10 5-chapter pieces, or 15 3-chapter pieces and one
> stand-alone... you get the idea.
>

>
> > 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.
>
> I'm someone who felt all of the above. This was the first MEFA for me. I
> signed up not knowing quite what was expected of me. I'm strictly a reader
> and not an author. But I love to read and I thought I would be able to
> manage to write some reviews. Then I saw the number of stories and nearly
> unsubscribed immediately. Since Drabbles and poems are not my favorite
> pieces I didn't read them at all and concentrated on the stories. But I
> realized pretty soon why I'm not an author. Writing reviews is hard work for
> me. My count average for reviews was somewhere around 3-4 pts. I never
> managed a 10 pt review, although I really tried. I'm not given to flowery
> language<g>.

>
> > Bottom line, let's try to keep the MEFAs fair, inclusive, and
> > simple. If we lose those qualities, I think participation will
> > decrease.
> >
> > Kathy (Inkling)
>
> I'd like to second that "keep the MEFAs... *simple*" sentiment (while
> not disagreeing at all with the ellided bits). Complexity may be good
> in terms of (say) organizing categories; but the two basic things we
> need people to do is to (1) nominate stories and (2) vote on them.
>
> If either of those two major processes is perceived as overly complex,
> requiring attention to more than one or two basic, common-sense style
> rules, people will not participate.

> I even had someone mention to me that they would not be so willing to
> participate in the Mefas again...ever, as they were just as cliquey

> other awards. I couldn't even use the defense that the mefas

> winning, they were about feedback, because so many stories were left

>
>
> > An idea that I'm much more comfortable with is a chapter cap. I'm not
> > sure how this would work out practically, but perhaps the author

> > be limited to nominating 50 chapters. This could be 5 10-chapter
> > pieces, or 10 5-chapter pieces, or 15 3-chapter pieces and one
> > stand-alone... you get the idea.
> >
>
> I think this would be a horror to administer. For that fact alone,

> believe a chapter cap would be realistic.

>
> But let's not fool ourselves into thinking the reason this increase in
> participation needs to happen is to guarantee every single story a
> review. It'd be very nice if that happened, and no doubt with
> sufficient numbers of people reading sufficiently many *different*
> stories, tastes and judgments will vary enough that one review per
> story becomes a highly likely side-effect of competition. But that
> should not be our goal; it should not be the measure by which we judge
> the success or failure of these awards, or we are going to guarantee
> ourselves a very frustrating ride, indeed, and I would be very sorry
> to see that happen.
>
>
>
> Dwim

>
> P.S. Feel free to suspend discussion on this particular e-mail until
> or unless we get to a point where it becomes convenient/useful to take
> on the can of worms, as Larien so labeled it.
>
>
>
>
>
>

On 1 Nov 2005, at 04:45, rhapsody_the_bard wrote:

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Larian Elensar <larian_elensar@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I like a combination of 1 and 4  (Limiting the total number of
> > nominations and the number of nominations per week/time period). I
> > like spreading the nominations out over the whole nominating season,
> > because it will give a wider group of people the chance to nominate
> > stories too.  (Like instead of me nominating all of Author A's
> > stories in the first week, if I'm limited, then it might
> > allow/encourage someone new to the program to nominate some of A's
> > stories too.)
>
> Well or by category. I am just sitting here, wondering what would
> bring a less amount of admin, what would give unknown/new authors a
> chance to particpate.

Both very good questions to ask. :-)

> I think that
> people are more inclined to nominate authors they have read before or
> know themselves. What I so liked about this was the discovery of new
> authors. So maybe a restriction by author then? I don't know. I don't
> see a suggestion that I think: yeah, go for that.
>

A restriction by author is another good idea. The problem with it is,
if our goal is to try to lower the number of nominations overall it's
even harder to gauge what this limit should be. It's a pretty safe
guess that the number of nominators will grow by - maybe - 10-15%. But
those same nominators might be nominating more and more authors. Or we
may get better information as certain authors hear about the awards and
create an account for themselves with their preferred email. Etc.

> Marta, how many nominators did we have? Were there nominators who
> nominated a lot? Is there a breakdown to see if they nomitated also a
> lot by author specifically?? Just numbers.
>

Bless search-and-replace. There wasn't a quick way that I knew of to
look at this information, but I was able to come up with some numbers
quickly using find-and-replace in my word processor by searching for
the string "nom: [name]". So I was able to come up with some counts of
the number of nominations by each person. There were sixty nominators,
which made the following number of nominations (in no particular
order):

09
06
03
02
02
06
20
04
05
37
02
02
07
03
01
01
01
02
49
01
410
32
03
03
16
30
04
02
03
04
01
01
03
16
08
06
01
04
58
01
17
05
24
01
05
21
01
03
16
07
06
02
05
14
02
11
01
11
21


> If you take a week, for example to, nominate for the Dwarf category,
> you have the emphasis on them for a week, people wonder... ok Dwarf
> category, what might be a good story for that, have I read a great
> story last year?
>
> You still can say: ok there is a maximum for this category, but I
> think it would be nice to see the categories more balanced and all
> paid attention to.
>

I'm not sure about this. I think one of the major improvements of this
yhear is that the categories are open for voting all the time - not
last year where they were only open for a week or two and then
different categories opened. This way is so much simpler, and I think
we should apply the same principal to nominations.

What might be doable would be to have a featured category. Instead of
announcing nominations as they're finished we could announce all the
nominations in a given category that are finished. We could rotate
through them, posting every other day or two on one of the categories.
This would draw attention to that particular category and I think help
even out the voting.

But I think to require people to only nominate certain categories
during certain time periods would be impractical. It would probably cut
down on nominations, but at the expense of a lot of frustration.

Cheers,
Marta

> So I was able to come up with some counts of

>
>Sam, in Mordor, RoTK

On 1 Nov 2005, at 09:31, dwimmer_laik wrote:

>
> > There have been several suggestions:
> >
> > 1. Limit the number of nominations, period. Once we reach this cap
> no more nominations
> > are allowed.
>
> An absolute cap, I think, would unfairly benefit the first few
> nominators or people who had prepared a large list in advance. *cough
> cough* Some of us are a bit, shall we say, zealous?
>

That's putting it mildly. I wasn't kidding when I said that one of the
best ways to cut back on nominations would be for someone to come round
to my house around the end of February and break my fingers.

> > 2. Limit the number of nominations per person.
>
> This I think is most reasonable. It's easier to track than a
> combination of noms per person per period of time, while a simple time
> limitation seems likely to favor those who nominate early in a week or
> early in the over all process.
>

I agree. I've read most of the emails that have come in (even though
I'm behind in replying to them), and this is the option I'm most in
favor of.

> > 5. Limit nominations to pieces written this year.
>
> I'd be very much against this one. One of the things I like best is
> that older stories can participate. Also, I feel perfectly happy not
> nominating a piece because I know I could always do that next year.
>
> Some of the best things I read in this year's MEFAs were written two,
> three years ago, but I'd never seen them. I'd hate to lose that
> experience.
>

There are a few people over at the LJ who have come out in favor of
this option and so I want to give them a chance to explain why they
want to restrict nominations to this last year before I make up my
mind. But at this moment I find myself agreeing with you.

In the end, my opinion doesn't matter so much on this one. Due to those
nomination habits you were kind enough to term "zealous", I think most
of the stories I would nominate next year are from 2005-2006. (And rest
easy, there are much less... I haven't had the time to read anything
that wasn't nominated for the MEFAs.)

> > 6. Require the nominator to enter a vote for the story before the
> nomination can be
> > processed.
>
> This might push things too far in the other direction, or create a lot
> more work for the admins. Given when the nominations begin, I don't
> have time to write reviews, which means I wouldn't be able to nominate
> anything at all. I *need* summer. Besides which, I could always write
> a "placeholder"--"I will review this later"--just to be able to
> nominate a story, but that doesn't serve the purpose of this
> particular limitation and would create more work for the staff, who
> would have to physically check every nomination's initial review.
>

I see where you coming from. The idea to require a review was
originally my idea (though others came up with it on their own -
Thundera, maybe? Ann?), but seeing it discussed I can see that it
probably isn't the best solution to the problem of the number of
nominations.

Cheers,
Marta
*****
Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words. - St. Francis
of Assisi

> I am very much against going to the category thing with time limits. 
> We did
> that the first year, and I found it extremely confusing, I could
> never keep
> track of what category was which week, even with the reminders, which
> tended
> to clutter up my email and get caught in my spam trap.
>
> Dreamflower
>

>
>Sam, in Mordor, RoTK

> Well the liaison tracks them down and asks
> them if they want to run, most of them might
> say no, but some might say yes, feeling
> honoured. I shouldn't put a limit on that.

> I think this would be a horror to administer.
> For that fact alone, I don't believe a chapter
> cap would be realistic.

> I think I averaged 3-4 points myself. But I
> figured any feedback is good, so I don't worry
> so much about writing long reviews. (And
> you're right, 10 point ones are hard to
> write! ) :D

> I think I averaged 3-4 points myself. But I
> figured any feedback is good, so I don't worry
> so much about writing long reviews. (And
> you're right, 10 point ones are hard to
> write! ) :D

> 2. Limit the number of nominations per person.

> > 6. Require the nominator to enter a vote for the story before the
> nomination can be processed.
>
> I much prefer #6 and feel that while it may reduce nominations to
> some degree, that is, in part, the purpose, - I like this one in that
> it serves a dual purpose of being sure that all nominations that
> aren't self-nom get at least one review, and I would find a one-
> pointer acceptable.   I think if you like a story well enough to
> nominate it, it shouldn't been too hard to say why.  It should be
> simple, in the case of self-noms to put a note in the box that it is
> a self-nom, since they all have to be personally handled by liaisons
> anyway in order to get the approval and set the cate/sub-cate.
>

> My second choice would be to limit the number of nominations per
> author.  And it could be a fairly high number ... 15 (?)  Any author
> who has more than the allowed nominations should select which ones to
> run before finalizing the nominations.
>

> I would somewhat agree with a limit of nominations per nominator, but
> some people would lose out because of duplicate nominations and I'd
> want the number to be fairly high ... 25(?) I know I had some in mind
> from the beginning and nominated them right away, but throughout the
> season, I continually thought of others, and even later, have thought
> of some I wish I'd remember to nominate.
>

>> Hi Sulriel,
>

> a much more manageable size IMO. And it would probably be much

> > Cheers,> Marta>

> Hey all,
> > Someone asked about the distribution of nominations by nominator.
> > Below are two lists. First, stories per nominator.
> Second, self-nominated stories by author.
>

> > With #2, in which the nominators are limited to a reasonable number
> > of nominations, they should then have time to enter those reviews. 
> > And I think an upper limit of 25 or so is too high. That may
> > actually have the effect of *increasing* the number of nominations,
> > as new members may feel obligated to nominate their limit.  I
> > honestly think 10 to 12 nominations (with the extension for
> > drabbles/poetry I mentioned in my previous post) would have
> > the right effect.  People who nominated 2 or 3 dozen stories in the
> > past would then have to consider just which they *really* wanted to
> > nominate; people who nominated only a couple of stories might be
> > encouraged to do a few more this time round.  I know that I
> > nominated, I think, 8 or 9 stories, and I spent a good deal of time
> > thinking over which ones.  I thought maybe I was going overboard
> > until I saw how many stories other people were nominating.
>
> I nominated about 39, and I all reviewed them. Actually, I made sure I
> had those done at the very least, so 25 makes me wonder... is that
> enough? Because I read a lot and tried to nominate lesser known
> authors. I am just wondering if some nominators went 'overboard' and
> others nominated about a certain average. That is why I am curious
> about numbers. But you can't prevent what people will think when the
> see a limit on something (if it is number of stories allowed to
> nominate, word count and so on). Even if it is 10, 25 or 50.
>

> > I am very much against going to the category thing with time limits.
> > We did that the first year, and I found it extremely confusing, I
> > could never keep track of what category was which week, even with
> > the reminders, which tended to clutter up my email and get caught in
> > my spam trap.
>
> Well since this was my first MEFA, I possibly could not have known
> that this happened in the first year (and also I don't know how it
> happened).

> I am just saying this because while categorising we saw
> categories that had barely made a full category (Poetry about Dwarves
> were re-located). And well, this years nominations went differently, I
> guess, so I don't see the cluttering of e-mails happening. It is just
> the amount of work behind the scenes that just was a lot (talking
> about a huge amount of stress and time limit). It truly was a high
> peak, if you can spread that.. well it makes life a lot easier. For
> the admin/volunteers at least.
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Naresha" <north_shore_fruitcake@yahoo.com.au>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Post-Mortem Topic #1: Number of Nominations


>> 2. Limit the number of nominations per person.
>
> I'm not sure how many stories we had in 2004 as
> opposed to 2005, but I'm assuming that it went up
> and it would be safe to assume that the number of
> stories would increase incrementally again in
> 2006. But if we want to cut the number of
> stories down, the I seriously think we need to
> look a LOT lower down the numerical scale.
> Perhaps closer to 10 or 15.

I agree. Really, it seems logical to me. 25 or even 20 seems *way* too
many.


>
> Say approximately 80 people nominate next year,
> that is between 800 and 1200 stories. And the
> number we're complaing a number just over 1200.
> So I think perhaps we need to look at allowing
> people to nominate no more than 10 stories each.
> Yes, it WILL be tough for people like Marta (who
> was honest enough to admit she needed her fingers
> broken when nominating! :-P) to cut their
> nominations so drastically, but it WILL allow
> people to vote on more stories, thus allowing
> more authors to receive more reviews and would
> help eliminate what Larian found - people
> deciding not to participate in future years
> because they felt we weren't as unique as we were
> promoting - being a review based awards system,
> not purely a vote for a story system. And I must
> say that, whilst I wasn't expecting to be
> bombarded with FB, I was a little surprised - and
> a tad disappointed - with the QUALITY of the
> reviews I got. It made me think that people
> really just gave a perfunctory review because
> they had read it and wanted to move on.
>
> Also - and this is a matter for Anthony to
> comment on in terms of coding etc - we need to
> think about the possibility of cloning. Most
> people I know have at least two email addresses.
> If we choose to limit the number of nominations
> per person, then we really do increase the
> potential for people to consider signing up
> multiple email addys. Is there anyway the MEFA
> site could be configured to work a bit like Yahoo
> Mail does with Attachments. You get 5
> attachments and once you've done that, if you
> want more, you have to get rid of one of the
> other ones. Is there anyway that the site could
> be made so that it is essentially one ISP address
> per person - that would effectively stop the
> multiple email addy thing. And yes, I do know
> that people could sign up from more than one
> comp, but it is a fair amount of effort!
>
> As for placing a compulsory review clause on any
> nomination - I do like the idea because it
> ensures that every story gets at least ONE
> review, but it would be very, very difficult to
> police because as Dwim (I think) said, people can
> simply do a "place marker" in there like "Will
> review later." The only thing I can think of to
> avoid this is to place a word minimum on reviews.
> I would suggest a 20-25 word minimum. It may
> sound a lot, but it is only TWO LINES
> type-written. Considering that an average line
> of typed text is about 13 words, 25 really is not
> a stretch. I received a 13 word review (1pt) and
> it didnt even fill the entire line space in the
> MEFA site! And as for policing... If Anthony
> could code something into the site that wouldn't
> allow a review/nomination to be submitted until
> it was a certain word count, then it would be
> automatic!
>
> I think it was Dwim or Jenn that mentioned
> something about people getting other people to
> sign up to nominate stories they wanted in to
> nominate, but couldn't because of a per person
> cap. Yes, this is a possibility! But that
> person will ALSO be bound by a cap - which is one
> advantage to having a lower cap, rather than a
> higher one. Also... If you add in the compulsory
> review and minimum word count I talked about just
> above, it might help deter people from asking
> friends to sign up and nominate stuff they want
> once they realise what is involved. Whilst it
> would be easy for anyone who is genuinely wanting
> to nominate something, for people who were
> "puppetting" on behalf of someone else, it would
> be a royal pain in the bum!
>
> As for what has been mentioned about drabbles and
> poetry... I'm not sure if it has actually been
> suggested that they be excluded - but that does
> seem to be the case. As a drabble and poetry
> author, I really would feel this to make it a
> very exclusionary thing and would not return if
> that policy was ever implemented.
>
> One thing that I think has been neglected here in
> discussing this idea is that, by seeking to
> reduce the number of nominations, we run the risk
> of people saying what Larian mentioned earlier -
> we run the risk of people thinking we're being
> exclusionary and cliquey, which will most likely
> result in us LOSING people in future years.
>
> Now, I know that the MEFAs already run for a good
> long time, but perhaps we should consider
> extending the voting season? Perhaps shorten
> nomination season and give the extra time to
> voting. It would help limit nominations (to an
> extent) and give people more time to review
> things.
>
> Okay... I think I'm done now! :-P Sorry for the
> length of this thing!
>
> Resha.
>
> ~To forgive calls upon our love, to forget calls upon our strength~
>
> AIM: Naresha21 MSN: candyman_gypsy@hotmail.com Yahoo: fruitcake5m1
> Personal LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/nareshaninya/
> Writing LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/writingsofresha/
>
> My Website! Slash Me Happy
> http://www.websamba.com/SlashMeHappy
>
> http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?biter=Resha
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The best of Hasselhoff on the web - Hoffice Attachments!
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/attachments/hoffice_attachments.html
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >> With #2, in which the nominators are limited to a reasonable number
> >> of nominations, they should then have time to enter those reviews.
> >> And I think an upper limit of 25 or so is too high. That may
> >> actually have the effect of *increasing* the number of nominations,
> >> as new members may feel obligated to nominate their limit.  I
> >> honestly think 10 to 12 nominations (with the extension for
> >> drabbles/poetry I mentioned in my previous post) would have
> >> the right effect.  People who nominated 2 or 3 dozen stories in the
> >> past would then have to consider just which they *really* wanted to
> >> nominate; people who nominated only a couple of stories might be
> >> encouraged to do a few more this time round.  I know that I
> >> nominated, I think, 8 or 9 stories, and I spent a good deal of time
> >> thinking over which ones.  I thought maybe I was going overboard
> >> until I saw how many stories other people were nominating.
> >
> > I nominated about 39, and I all reviewed them. Actually, I made
> sure I
> > had those done at the very least, so 25 makes me wonder... is that
> > enough? Because I read a lot and tried to nominate lesser known
> > authors. I am just wondering if some nominators went 'overboard' and
> > others nominated about a certain average. That is why I am curious
> > about numbers. But you can't prevent what people will think when the
> > see a limit on something (if it is number of stories allowed to
> > nominate, word count and so on). Even if it is 10, 25 or 50.
>
> Well, if the idea is to keep the numbers down, we have to consider
> that at
> least a little bit.  I recall at some point mentioning limits before,
> and
> someone replied that they felt that as time went on the awards would
> become
> self-limiting. But I am afraid I don't see that, and at this point in
> time,
> do we really want to risk next year's noms perhaps doubling? or even
> half
> again as many?  I know the amount of work you put in as a liaison
> (you did a
> great job, by the way) but do you want to risk that work load
> doubling next
> year?
>

> At any rate, if the idea is to put the limit at as high as 25, then
> we may
> need to limit the number of new members we take--and *that* is a can
> of
> worms I *definitely* would *not* like to see opened!
>

> It was good that some of the people who nominated many stories did
> vote on
> all of them, but a good many did not.  However *requiring* a vote to
> finalize seems to me to cause as many problems as it solves.  As I
> said,
> with a lower limit, everyone should have plenty of time to vote on
> their
> noms.
>

> >> I am very much against going to the category thing with time
> limits.
> >> We did that the first year, and I found it extremely confusing, I
> >> could never keep track of what category was which week, even with
> >> the reminders, which tended to clutter up my email and get caught
> in
> >> my spam trap.
> >
> > Well since this was my first MEFA, I possibly could not have known
> > that this happened in the first year (and also I don't know how it
> > happened). I am just saying this because while categorising we saw
> > categories that had barely made a full category (Poetry about
> Dwarves
> > were re-located). And well, this years nominations went
> differently, I
> > guess, so I don't see the cluttering of e-mails happening. It is
> just
> > the amount of work behind the scenes that just was a lot (talking
> > about a huge amount of stress and time limit). It truly was a high
> > peak, if you can spread that.. well it makes life a lot easier. For
> > the admin/volunteers at least.
> >
> Last year, each category had a "season" during which nominations
> could be
> made, and a "season" for voting on those categories. As I said, I
> found it
> very confusing; I made no nominations and I think I only voted on
> about 5 or
> 6 stories, because it was just overwhelming.  Just as I would think
> I'd have
> time to vote on something, its "season" would be over.  And with all
> the
> categories and sub-categories we had this year, to get all of them
> in, the
> "seasons" would have to be extremely short.
>

>> > number of stories out there. Also, because of the fact that

> many new stories this year and that many of the old stories have

> I don't quite understand the "I suggest not counting drabbles, as I
> think doing so would encourage people to nominate longer pieces
> instead." comment.  I just felt badly that there were instances when
> they ended up having to compete against full stories.  Some authors
> almost specialize in drabbles.  Were you meaning to not have drabbles
> at all?  Oh well, that's another subject altogether.
>

>
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, ejackamack@a... wrote:
>> number of stories out there. Also, because of the fact that
>> there is no time limit, a lot of older stories got nominated.
>> That pool of older stories has been mined pretty extensively in
>> the first two years of the awards. I think people will be hard
>> put to find some four or five year old gem tucked away somewhere
>> next year. So between the fact that I don't think there will be
>> as many new stories this year and that many of the old stories
>> have already been nominated,
>
> I really don't agree at all with the published date criteria, I
> think that - as has been said - it is self-limiting to a point
> because of the size and growth of the fandom, and that fact that so
> many of the older stories have already been nominated.

> Just wanted to chuck in a couple of comments on this
> subject, as no one seemed to have made them yet.

> One of my reasons for liking the idea of cutting down
> the quantity of nominations overall is that hopefully
> it will increase the proportion of stories that are
> really good.  This year I read or at least started to
> read every story that was entered, but even thought I
> ended up having a lot of time (due to spending most of
> september in bed ill...) I did not have the time to
> read through everything and so often ended up judging
> stories on their first paragraph or two.  This is one
> of the reasons why I feel it would be better to have a
> global limit on nominations, no matter what other
> method are used.

> My one other suggestion would be a limit on stories
> per catogory eg 25 stories per catogory, once it is
> full no more stories can go into that catogory.  This
> would probably be harder to inforce by the admins but
> it would seem to be a way of helping to make sure that
> there is a wide range of interesting stories, rather
> than have some huge catogories and some tiny ones.

> Cheers,

> Sorry missed one point that I wanted to make: there
> are at present 326 members of the yahoo group, if
> everyone of these was given the right to nominate 25
> stories then the awards could end up with 8150 stories
> entered!  (and that does not allow for more people
> becoming involved).
> One thing is that if people want to nominate more than
> their limit, they could always ask someone else to
> nominate stories for them ... either in a totally fair
> way (eg saying about MEFAs to someone they knew really
> liked a story and suggesting that they could nominate
> it) or in a escaping the point way (eg asking some
> random person they know who has a yahoo id to sign up
> and nom a list of stories for them).  I know this
> example could be seem as a bit extreeme, but one of
> the problems is that there are many things in between
> and what is okay to do and what is definately not
> okay.

>
>
> > I even had someone mention to me that they would not be so

> > participate in the Mefas again...ever, as they were just as

> as any
> > other awards. I couldn't even use the defense that the mefas
> weren't about
> > winning, they were about feedback, because so many stories were

> out.
>
> Ok, I'm putting on my grumpy hat, here. Please don't take this
> personally, anyone, but this particular comment hits a hot button

> inspires a lot of frustration with a sentiment I cannot reasonably
> find any sympathy for, despite seeing very clearly that we need more
> eyes, reading more broadly, to avoid the *odor* of cliquishness and
> make the awards as fair as possible.
>
>
> It seems to me (and I could be misinterpreting what I'm seeing) that
> there's this idea floating about that the mere fact of entering what
> is, in the end, a competition, deserves some kind of reward, and

> anything less than that means a clique is in operation. The very

> that an appropriate response to the accusation that MEFAs are

> is to appeal to the fact that every story gets a review is simply to
> miss the point, in the first place. Even if every story was

> that would not thereby mean there wasn't a clique in operation; the
> converse is also true: the fact that some stories were not reviewed

> not evidence of a clique in operation. An appropriate response to
> serious complaints that MEFAs are cliquish is not to point to the

> (if it is a fact at any point) that every story got at least one
> review. An appropriate response is to analyze data trends to see if
> there's some sort of statistical correlation among voters. Anything
> less is hardly satisfactory because it doesn't address the

> factor. Who cares if you get a token review if there's really a sort
> of cheating going on?
>
> This leads me to think that the issue is not about cliquishness as a
> form of genuine unfairness resulting from deliberate, prejudicial
> voting. It's about people's self-esteem and a concern to make

> happy.
>
> So what about making everyone happy by making sure every story gets

> least one review?
>
> MEFAs depend on the logic of numbers--if sufficiently many people
> review, the likelihood is that every story will get at least one
> review as a happy by product of people's efforts to make the awards

> objective as possible (by reading as widely as real life permits,

> reviewing as desire and judgment move them in the time available).
>
> But please note firstly that that's just raw probability speaking,
> which doesn't even account for the element of judgment that comes

> play; and secondly, that every story getting reviewed is a *by
> product*, not an end in itself. It's a coincidental result of

> the numbers game, not a goal of the awards.
>
> Some may ask: Why should it not be a goal of the awards? Aren't we
> trying to avoid competition as a zero sum game?
>
> We are indeed, so far as I understand matters. But a non-zero-sum-

> does not mean that every person equally benefits. It just means that
> if one person wins, the other parties are not left with absolutely
> nothing, or worse, deprived of goods they had an equal right to. It
> does not mean that everyone wins, however.
>
> So why shouldn't we make it a goal that MEFAs should be purely a
> positive sum game for every author? Well, in any competition, the
> element of risk is ineliminable--even in a non-zero-sum-game, not
> everyone is going to end up with an *optimal* balance sheet, and

> is understood from the outset. If you enter a competition, you

> the risk that you may get no reaction (MEFAs nicely suppresses the
> possibility of negative reaction, or at least converts negative
> comments into positive points for your story thanks to the way

> is organized). To expect that that risk is eliminated is not
> respectful of the other people involved.
>
> To put it in blunt, personal terms, I read a lot of stories this

> around--not all, but many. And while I enjoyed many, even most, of
> them, I didn't vote--and I *wouldn't* vote--for every single one

> I read. It'd be dishonest if I did. The pressure to make sure every
> story gets at least one review is a pressure I frankly resent,

> it feels like emotional blackmail from parties who don't seem to

> the fact that one is not entitled to *positive* feedback (or any
> feedback) simply by putting a work out there for others to read.
> Particularly in a forum that is competitive (and no matter how
> congenial and low keythat element is at MEFAs, it is at base a
> competition, even if a non-zero-sum game), that expectation is

> misplaced and I think can lead to serious adminstrative and general
> morale problems that would threaten the awards' existence if we
> allowed it to dictate the form of the awards directly.
>
>
>
> Bottom line of this rather ranty posting: Participation is all
> important--we can all agree on that--and we definitely need to do

> we can to make it easier and more likely that others will join in

> judging process, whether they write one review or a mind-boggling

> (What is that, nearly 65% of all stories nominated? And think how

> more that reviewer had to read to get to that number.)
>
> But let's not fool ourselves into thinking the reason this increase

> participation needs to happen is to guarantee every single story a
> review. It'd be very nice if that happened, and no doubt with
> sufficient numbers of people reading sufficiently many *different*
> stories, tastes and judgments will vary enough that one review per
> story becomes a highly likely side-effect of competition. But that
> should not be our goal; it should not be the measure by which we

> the success or failure of these awards, or we are going to guarantee
> ourselves a very frustrating ride, indeed, and I would be very sorry
> to see that happen.
>
>
>
> Dwim
>
> P.S. Feel free to suspend discussion on this particular e-mail until
> or unless we get to a point where it becomes convenient/useful to

> on the can of worms, as Larien so labeled it.
>

> A request: when people say which option they like, can they mention
> it by name and not just number? 

> #2. Limit noms per person.  Could work, I guess, and seems fairer
> than some of the other options.  But I am very leery of Marta's
> suggestion to limit number of chapters nominated.  Sounds too
> complicated, on both the nominating and admin ends.  Plus, there are
> too many variables&some people write really long chapters, some
> short.  And I don't see this option favoring longer stories over
> short.  Some people don't like to read long stories, and so I imagine
> that they wouldn't nominate them either.
>

> # 5. Limit noms to recent stories.  I know many are opposed to this,
> but I just want to say one thing in its favor.  As Erin so eloquently
> pointed out, the fandom is changing, and slowing down.  I see this
> option as way to encourage the writing of new fanfiction.  But I
> guess that's a different issue from limiting noms.  I do think it
> would have this effect as well, though. 
>

> # 6 Nominators must submit a vote. 
> I appreciate the idea here, which is to get people to think about
> their nominations.  But what if someone's vote consists of "I think
> this is a great story."  Would you consider that sufficient?  And if
> not, are you prepared to start arbitrating what constitutes a valid
> vote? 
>
> I think you may want to consider taking #6 out of this discussion as
> I don't believe it will have a limiting effect on nominations, or not
> much of one.  Especially if people can just write, "I will review
> later," or "What a great story!"  If it has merits other than as a
> nomination-limiting tool, then make it its own topic.
>

> Bottom line, let's try to keep the MEFAs fair, inclusive, and
> simple.  If we lose those qualities, I think participation will
> decrease.
>

> That's just it. I may have mis-interpreted the main theme of the

>
> I thought that was the whole point of the awards. NOT the winning.

>
> My bad for misinterpreting the purpose of the awards, though.
>
> And yes, I'll drop this subject as well, as it's off-topic...and

>
> My apologies.
> >

>
> > 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.
>
> I'm someone who felt all of the above. This was the first MEFA for
> me. I
> signed up not knowing quite what was expected of me. I'm strictly a
> reader
> and not an author. But I love to read and I thought I would be able to
> manage to write some reviews. Then I saw the number of stories and
> nearly
> unsubscribed immediately. Since Drabbles and poems are not my favorite
> pieces I didn't read them at all and concentrated on the stories. But
> I
> realized pretty soon why I'm not an author. Writing reviews is hard
> work for
> me. My count average for reviews was somewhere around 3-4 pts. I never
> managed a 10 pt review, although I really tried. I'm not given to
> flowery
> language<g>.
>

>
>
> On 1 Nov 2005, at 10:59, rhapsody_the_bard wrote:

>
> One thing to consider is that, if you really like an author you can
> encourage them to join themselves and nominate their own stories.
> Rhapsody, I noticed that several of your nominations were for Isil
> Elensar. I know the two of you share a website, so I assume you're
> pretty close. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with
> encouraging Isil to get involved with the MEFAs, to nominate her
> own stories and maybe nominate or vote for some others that she
> already knows.

> For this reason I think we can give the categorisers more time than
> they had this year to get categories settled. We do need to talk
> about the schedule more, but I think this can definitely be spread
> out more than it was this year.

On 1 Nov 2005, at 20:37, Larian Elensar wrote:

>
>
> --- Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Larian,
> >
> > > I like a combination of 1 and 4  (Limiting the total number of
> > > nominations and
> > >  the number of nominations per week/time period).
> > >
> >
> > The more I think about it, the less sure I am about this option. I
> can
> > see the plus sides of it, and it's definitely something to keep in
> mind
> > as a possibility. But I think having an over-all limit on the
> number of
> > nominations would favor those people who nominate early. It also
> might
> > encourage people to nominate stories they are unsure about earlier
> on
> > because they aren't sure if they'll have the chance to later.
> >
> > How would you feel about limiting the number of nominations per
> > nominator rather than overall? I think that would have the same
> effect
> > since there's a limited number of people making nominations, but
> would
> > mean everyone gets a more equal chance to nominate.
>
>
> Yes, after seeing others' responses, and thinking further, limiting
> the overall
> nominations would probably not be the best solution.
>

Thanks for giving this further thought, and being flexible. That's a
really admirable quality, and a useful one in discussions like this.

> The easiest one to administer would probably the option of limiting
> nominations
> per person.

I agree. I think it would be simplest for the nominator to grasp and
the volunteers to administer.

> And as an aside, I wouldn't make drabbles an exception.  A
> nomination is a nomination. If you limit non-drabbles, but not
> drabbles,
> someone will think that drabble authors are being favored, or that
> longer
> stories are being favored because they might have less competition.
>

Do you think it would be perceived that way if we worded it as a
break-down according to story type? "X stories, Y drabbles, and Z
poems" rather than "X entries, Y of which must be drabbles."

> I think it's probably been discussed in other emails, but no matter
> how you
> word it for number six (forcing the nominator to vote before the
> nomination is
> processed), it will still make the whole process that much more
> intimidating to
> new nominators.
>

I think you're right on this. The more I read, the less comfortable I
am with requiring nominators to make votes. It's a good idea but
probably not the best way to go about it.

Marta
*****
Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words. - St. Francis
of Assisi

On 1 Nov 2005, at 20:50, Anthony Holder wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> Someone asked about the distribution of nominations by nominator.
>
> Below are two lists. First, stories per nominator.
> Second, self-nominated stories by author.
>
> About feasibility:
> #1, very possible, but duplicates and withdrawals will make it hard to
> get exact.
>
> #2, very easy. I might be able to re-count when stories are withdrawn
> or duplicates, which would otherwise limit someone's number.
>
> #3, relatively easy, but I don't like the idea.
>
> #4, I could do this. It would be relatively easy to say no more than X
> in the last Y days. The count would be updated all the time, rather
> than just once a week, and tell the user when they would be able to
> nominate another story.
>
> #5, I'm not sure I could do anything about this. It would be a liaison
> thing.
>
> #6, I could do this. My suggestion would be that if you wanted to,
> make
> the minimum a 4-5 pointer, except for ficlets or drabbles. It's not
> too
> hard to determine if the nominator is the author. I personally don't
> see why the nominator shouldn't be required to submit a good review as
> part of the nomination process, unless it is a self-nomination.
>
> Anthony
>
> Here's the number of stories nominated by each nominatorID. I didn't
> include the nominatorID, just the number. There were 74 unique
> nominators.
>

> Hullo : )
>
> There were just sixty nominators total? And these were the totals of
> those individual nominators? That never adds up to the several
> thousand stories that were nominated, or am I missing something here?
> Is this just in certain categories?
>
> Hugs,
>
> Marigold
>

On 11/2/05, sulriel <Sulriel@htcomp.net> wrote:
>
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, ejackamack@a... wrote:
> >> > number of stories out there. Also, because of the fact that
> there is no time > limit, a lot of older stories got nominated.
> That pool of older stories has > been mined pretty extensively in
> the first two years of the awards. I think > people will be hard
> put to find some four or five year old gem tucked away > somewhere
> next year. So between the fact that I don't think there will be as
> > many new stories this year and that many of the old stories have
> already been > nominated,
>
>
> I really don't agree at all with the published date criteria, I think
> that - as has been said - it is self-limiting to a point because of
> the size and growth of the fandom, and that fact that so many of the
> older stories have already been nominated.
>
> I also think that it would be problematic - since we haven't had a
> date criteria in the past, to impose one now could be disallowing
> stories that people expected to be able to run in future years. -
> I'm having a wonderful time working my way back through an old fic
> that had some problems and I'm much happier with what I'm able to do
> with it now. - Depending on what's going on with it next year, I may
> want it to run and would hate to think the old 'learning-curve'
> version would have been eligible and the updated one wouldn't.
> Maybe I'm alone in that boat - I don't know, but I doubt it.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> - Visit your group "MEFAwards<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEFAwards>"
> on the web.
> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>


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

> To state my position up front, I'm a big fan of #2 and #4 (limiting by
> person and limiting by person within a time period). I agree with
> other comments made that if we cap nominations as a whole, we'd be
> racing to get nominations in. And I don't think this should be a race.
> I think this should be something that people think about and consider.
>

> Likewise, I'm not overly fond of capping the number of stories per
> category. I think it would be an adminstrative headache, especially if
> stories start getting shuffled between second and third category
> choices. Beyond which, some categories will rarely get into the double
> figures (like horror) while others get there quickly (like drama).
> That makes drama a much more restrictive category than horror, and the
> drama nominations that don't make the cut might try to get in by
> masquerading as horror when they really don't belong there.
>

> As for the debate regarding drabbles vs. novels... Perhaps I'm not
> understanding the concerns correctly. It's my observation, though,
> that people tend to nominate what they read. If they read drabbles,
> they'll nominate drabbles. If they read novels, they'll nominate
> novels.

> Could you ration your comments, so that a story you really liked got
> 5-6 points, one you liked but not as much got 3-4, and ones that you
> thought had something good about them but weren't as good as 3-4 pters
> got 1-2 points? As far as I'm concerned there's nothing in the world
> wrong with doing it this way.
>
> Cheers,
> Marta

>
> Okay, I dug through and found Marta's original six suggestions, so here's
> my take on them:

>> > This isn't something I've going to insist on. I think that

>

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
>
> if it's set at ten ... I suppose I wouldn't fuss if it were set at
> ten short story or novel or epics, *and* five poetry or drabble.
>
> IOW, totally seperate nominations. not mix and match.
>
> Sulriel
>

>
> > --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
> >
> > if it's set at ten ... I suppose I wouldn't fuss if it were set at
> > ten short story or novel or epics, *and* five poetry or drabble.
> >
> > IOW, totally seperate nominations. not mix and match.
> >
> > Sulriel
> >
>
> That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise to me.
>
> Kathy (Inkling)

> > I think this would be a horror to administer.
> > For that fact alone, I don't believe a chapter
> > cap would be realistic.
>
>
> I must agree with this one.  People have been
> talking about making things as user friendly as
> possible so as not to confuse and lose new comers
> - I've been a part of both MEFAs and I must say
> that *I'M* by how this would work!
>

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@s...> wrote:
> >
> > > --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
> > >
> > > if it's set at ten ...  I suppose I wouldn't fuss if it were set
> at
> > > ten short story or novel or epics, *and* five poetry or drabble.
> > >
> > > IOW, totally seperate nominations.  not mix and match.
> > >
> > > Sulriel
> > >
> >
> > That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise to me.
> >
> > Kathy (Inkling)
>
> Again, I say "Ditto!"
>
> Dwim
>

> However, whilst I was disappointed that a lot of
> the reviews I wrote were only 2 or three points,
> I hesitated to write more because I felt that by
> doing that I was lessening the QUALITY of the
> feedback.  But that's just me.  Also, something
> that did get to me was a 1pt review I received.
> Whilst I didn't give two hoots about the point
> value, the content of it did make me wonder why
> the person had bothered reviewing at all!  Do we
> have a system in place to prevent flaming of
> authors and their stories?  I know constructive
> criticism is allowed - and I gave some myself to
> some people - but we're all aware that some
> people have nothing better to do other than write
> insulting feedback to people!  Is there something
> we could put in place to help prevent this?  Or
> would the only workable thing be to ban people
> after the act itself?
>

> Also when it comes down to tracking author's, even of those who left
> the fandom, I think we did a good job on finding them.
>
> Rhapsody
>

> 2. Limit the number of nominations per person.
>
> Per nominator or per author? If a) feasible, but still not thrilling,
> if b)
> ditto.

> 5. Limit nominations to pieces written this year.
>
> Nooooooo!

> 6. Require the nominator to enter a vote for the story before the
> nomination can be processed.
> Can we modify this one to "require the nominator to submit a
> "nomination
> comment" rather than a vote? I mean it, seriously -- reading the
> comments
> about stories which other people made had me looking into
> possibilities I
> wouldn't have considered given the story descriptions. The squee
> tipped the
> balance, and a lot more than once for me. And a nomination comment
> could
> also come from an author who self-nominated.

> And let me add 7. Put a limit of three on self-nominations, but allow
> for
> stories which people want to submit to be "seconded" by another
> person. In
> other words, if I have five drabbles I think ought to be considered, I
> submit all five to the "second me" list, and if two of them get
> seconded by
> another nominator, then the remaining three can go up under my own
> aegis.
> But if only one gets seconded, then I have to pick three to push this
> year
> and save the last one for next year.
>

> <snip>
> From an administrative POV I love self-nominations. There's much
> less work to do, and I know the author's correct email address, so
> there's no problem getting in touch with the author. Also, if
> someone is involved enough to nominate stories, I think they have a
> right for their stories to participate if they think they're good
> enough. With a limit on the number of nominations now, I know that
> I would have to sit and think long and hard about what pieces to
> self-nominate if I choose to do so. But then I write mostly one-
> shots and drabbles. I could probably use all of my nominations on
> myself if I chose to do so, and still have pieces from the last
> year left over.
>

>> > 6. Require the nominator to enter a vote for the story before the
>> > nomination can be processed.
>> > Can we modify this one to "require the nominator to submit a
>> > "nomination
>> > comment" rather than a vote? I mean it, seriously -- reading the
>> > comments
>> > about stories which other people made had me looking into
>> > possibilities I
>> > wouldn't have considered given the story descriptions. The squee
>> > tipped the
>> > balance, and a lot more than once for me. And a nomination comment
>> > could
>> > also come from an author who self-nominated.
>>
>> Hmm, this idea has potential. Would you be okay if we made this
>> optional? A nominator can put in a brief comment on what they like
>> about the story. And I emphasise short -- maybe 200 characters max.
>> If a nominator doesn't want to, they don't have to include
>> anything, but I hope they would.

On 11/2/05, Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I meant limit the number of nominations per nominator. I don't like
> limiting per author for the same reason I don't like #1 (limit of total
> num of noms): the actions of one nominator could penalise the whole
> group.

Yeah, that's the way most people seem to see it. I'd prefer a high limit,
if any.

> 6. Require the nominator to enter a vote for the story before the
> > nomination can be processed.
> > Can we modify this one to "require the nominator to submit a
> > "nomination
> > comment" rather than a vote? I mean it, seriously -- reading the
> > comments
> > about stories which other people made had me looking into
> > possibilities I
> > wouldn't have considered given the story descriptions. The squee
> > tipped the
> > balance, and a lot more than once for me. And a nomination comment
> > could
> > also come from an author who self-nominated.
>
> Hmm, this idea has potential. Would you be okay if we made this
> optional? A nominator can put in a brief comment on what they like
> about the story. And I emphasise short -- maybe 200 characters max. If
> a nominator doesn't want to, they don't have to include anything, but I
> hope they would.
>
> I hurry to add that this isn't to make the nominator "justify" his or
> her choice -- it's to explain that choice to other readers. For example
> I like pieces that look at ceremonies and traditions and different
> aspects of cultures. I'll enjoy pieces that focus on individuals, but
> if a piece said that it did a good job developing a coming-of-age
> ceremony for Rohan I would probably be more likely to read that.

Optional is good, although I'll admit to preferring required. I'm a
children's librarian, and I purchase books by looking at reviews -- even a
short review tells me a little about the nominator as well as the story
being reviewed, and after a while I know whose opinions and tastes are a
reliable match for my own. And I honestly don't see a short comment (I
wouldn't put a maximum on it, but I suspect most would be short anyway) as a
horrible burden. If I like something well enough to nom, I like it well
enough to take five more minutes.

> And let me add 7. Put a limit of three on self-nominations, but allow
> > for
> > stories which people want to submit to be "seconded" by another
> > person. In
> > other words, if I have five drabbles I think ought to be considered, I
> > submit all five to the "second me" list, and if two of them get
> > seconded by
> > another nominator, then the remaining three can go up under my own
> > aegis.
> > But if only one gets seconded, then I have to pick three to push this
> > year
> > and save the last one for next year.
> >
>
> Can you explain more how you see this working in a little bit more
> depth? If I second a self-nomination, does that take one of my
> nominations?

Hmm. I wasn't thinking in terms of an overall limit (because I don't
actually much favor it), just a limit on self-noms, but if there were a
limit I'd say a "second" counts as half a nom, or not limit the number of
"seconds" at all. I see it as a simple "ooh, yes please" kind of vote,
possibly with a short comment if those end up being required.

From an administrative POV I love self-nominations. There's much less
> work to do, and I know the author's correct email address, so there's
> no problem getting in touch with the author. Also, if someone is
> involved enough to nominate stories, I think they have a right for
> their stories to participate if they think they're good enough. With a
> limit on the number of nominations now, I know that I would have to sit
> and think long and hard about what pieces to self-nominate if I choose
> to do so. But then I write mostly one-shots and drabbles. I could
> probably use all of my nominations on myself if I chose to do so, and
> still have pieces from the last year left over.

I write drabbles myself, when the muse is functional, so I have a lot of
individual pieces, but having a limit on self-noms would force me to make
sure that I was submitting my best stuff. And requiring a "second" for more
than a few of my self-noms would guarantee that I wasn't the only person
interested. Since there's no time limit, I can save stuff for next year,
when I might be a bit more impartial about it. And since there's no limit on
the number of pieces which other folks can nominate of mine, it's not like I
won't have multiple entries if I'm any good at all.
The thing about self-nominations is that I really do want people to think
long and hard about them. Remember the accusation elsewhere about
'cliquishness'? A person who isn't shy about nominating a lot of their own
pieces has a good chance of winning a lot of awards, and that can look
lopsided in favor of the "in-group" if you don't understand the mechanics of
the awards well. The other side of that coin is that several people have
mentioned that just being nominated is an honor, and I like that being true
-- it encourages participation -- and while being able to self-nominate has
a strong value to me in terms of allowing an author to say, "hey, lookee!"
about a favorite piece or two, it also diminishes that honor just a tad if
the whole process appears to turn into the "self aggrandizing fandom awards"
instead of the MEFAs. So, while I liked having lots to choose from, if I
were going to put a limit anywhere it would be on the self-noms.
*going back to bed now*


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

>
>Sam, in Mordor, RoTK

>
>Sam, in Mordor, RoTK

> I think drabbles are easy to review quickly
> and easy to write quickly, so an author who
> specialises in drabbles could easily write 25 >

> which isn't very much. Whereas an author who
> specialises in novel-length pieces could be
> working on the same epic for more than a year.

On 3 Nov 2005, at 07:07, Naresha wrote:

> > I think drabbles are easy to review quickly
> > and easy to write quickly, so an author who
> > specialises in drabbles could easily write 25 >
> in a year. That's just one every two weeks,
> > which isn't very much. Whereas an author who
> > specialises in novel-length pieces could be
> > working on the same epic for more than a year.
>
> Honestly, I personally think that's simplifying
> it a bit too much!  I know people who can dash
> out good quality LONG fics rather quickly, whilst
> some true drabbles can take a rather long time
> because of the restraint needed in wording.
> Often it can be a matter of rewording several
> times to get the same effect but in the correct
> number of words. 

Believe me, I know that drabbles can be tricksy. :-) And I'm sure I was
over-simplifying things, and that there are some people who can write
good *and* long pieces reasonably quickly. But I still think that
drabbles can be written significantly quicker than longer pieces.

> I really do think that an
> overall cap will be a lot simpler to explain to
> people - and a lot less work for everyone doing
> the admin type stuff!
>

Really, I have no huge problem with an overall cap. I'd be okay with
either one. There's a poll going right now on just this topic, and I'll
happily go with whatever the majority of people want.

Cheers,
Marta

> Marta said: "I agree that the number should be high. But really, we
> didn't have that many nominators who nominated more than two or three
> stories -- around 30 I think? Giving them each 25 stories would give
> us 750 nominations, a much more manageable size IMO. And it would
> probably be much lower since most of those nominators didn't nominate
> 25."
>
> I like the idea of 25 nominations, really no less than that. I do
> think that many folks will still nominate just 2 or 3 stories, and
> even taking into consideration new participants, there is also the
> matter of attrition to consider. We don't want to go in the opposite
> direction and not have enough stories next year.
>

> And while a good deal fewer stories might encourage some voters to
> read story types they aren't normally interested in, there will be
> quite a few who will not do this. A fairly high limit on the number of
> nominations per person should ensure that every story genre/type has a
> nice representation to make all of the readers happy.
>
> I am not sure if I explained that thought quite right, but I have
> just got home from a long night at work and I am knackered!
>
>

> Resha said: Now, I know that the MEFAs already run for a good
> long time, but perhaps we should consider extending the voting
> season?  Perhaps shorten nomination season and give the extra time to
> voting.  It would help limit nominations (to an
> extent) and give people more time to review things. >>
>
> I like this idea. If nominations are going to be limited per person,
> then it should be easier for most folks to get them done in a timely
> manner. I'd appreciate having a bit of the time from nominating season
> allocated to reading season and/or voting season.
>

> > > Can we modify this one to "require the nominator to submit a
> > > "nomination
> > > comment" rather than a vote?
>
> <snippage>
> > Hmm, this idea has potential. Would you be okay if we made this
> > optional? A nominator can put in a brief comment on what they like
> > about the story. And I emphasise short -- maybe 200 characters max.
> If
> > a nominator doesn't want to, they don't have to include anything,
> but I
> > hope they would.
> >
> > I hurry to add that this isn't to make the nominator "justify" his
> or
> > her choice -- it's to explain that choice to other readers. For
> example
> > I like pieces that look at ceremonies and traditions and different
> > aspects of cultures. I'll enjoy pieces that focus on individuals,
> but
> > if a piece said that it did a good job developing a coming-of-age
> > ceremony for Rohan I would probably be more likely to read that.
>
> Optional is good, although I'll admit to preferring required. I'm a
> children's librarian, and I purchase books by looking at reviews --
> even a
> short review tells me a little about the nominator as well as the
> story
> being reviewed, and after a while I know whose opinions and tastes
> are a
> reliable match for my own. And I honestly don't see a short comment (I
> wouldn't put a maximum on it, but I suspect most would be short
> anyway) as a
> horrible burden. If I like something well enough to nom, I like it
> well
> enough to take five more minutes.
>

> > And let me add 7. Put a limit of three on self-nominations, but
> allow
> > > for
> > > stories which people want to submit to be "seconded" by another
> > > person. In
> > > other words, if I have five drabbles I think ought to be
> considered, I
> > > submit all five to the "second me" list, and if two of them get
> > > seconded by
> > > another nominator, then the remaining three can go up under my own
> > > aegis.
> > > But if only one gets seconded, then I have to pick three to push
> this
> > > year
> > > and save the last one for next year.
> > >
> >
> > Can you explain more how you see this working in a little bit more
> > depth? If I second a self-nomination, does that take one of my
> > nominations?
>
> Hmm. I wasn't thinking in terms of an overall limit (because I don't
> actually much favor it), just a limit on self-noms, but if there were
> a
> limit I'd say a "second" counts as half a nom, or not limit the
> number of
> "seconds" at all. I see it as a simple "ooh, yes please" kind of vote,
> possibly with a short comment if those end up being required.
>

> > From an administrative POV I love self-nominations. There's much less
> > work to do, and I know the author's correct email address, so
> there's
> > no problem getting in touch with the author. Also, if someone is
> > involved enough to nominate stories, I think they have a right for
> > their stories to participate if they think they're good enough.
> With a
> > limit on the number of nominations now, I know that I would have to
> sit
> > and think long and hard about what pieces to self-nominate if I
> choose
> > to do so. But then I write mostly one-shots and drabbles. I could
> > probably use all of my nominations on myself if I chose to do so,
> and
> > still have pieces from the last year left over.
>
> I write drabbles myself, when the muse is functional, so I have a lot
> of
> individual pieces, but having a limit on self-noms would force me to
> make
> sure that I was submitting my best stuff. And requiring a "second"
> for more
> than a few of my self-noms would guarantee that I wasn't the only
> person
> interested. Since there's no time limit, I can save stuff for next
> year,
> when I might be a bit more impartial about it. And since there's no
> limit on
> the number of pieces which other folks can nominate of mine, it's not
> like I
> won't have multiple entries if I'm any good at all.

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >  From an administrative POV I love self-nominations. There's much
> > less work to do, and I know the author's correct email address, so
> > there's no problem getting in touch with the author. Also, if
> > someone is involved enough to nominate stories, I think they have a
> > right for their stories to participate if they think they're good
> > enough. With a limit on the number of nominations now, I know that
> > I would have to sit and think long and hard about what pieces to
> > self-nominate if I choose to do so. But then I write mostly one-
> > shots and drabbles. I could probably use all of my nominations on
> > myself if I chose to do so, and still have pieces from the last
> > year left over.
> >
>
> Ummm...while I'm hesitant to throw one more idea into the mix, and
> I'm not at all sure this is even a *good* idea so please, anyone feel
> free to shoot it down, but reading some of the self-nomination
> comments makes me wonder: if we DO go with some kind of
> nomination "mix," what about something like this: 10 stories, 10
> poems/drabbles, and 5 self-noms?
>
> Kathy/Inkling
>

>>>> is Rabidsamfan
>>> is me
> is Thundera

>>>> Can we modify this one to "require the nominator to submit a
>>>> "nomination
>>>> comment" rather than a vote?

>>>
>>> Hmm, this idea has potential. Would you be okay if we made this
>>> optional? A nominator can put in a brief comment on what they like
>>> about the story. And I emphasise short -- maybe 200 characters max.
>>> If a nominator doesn't want to, they don't have to include
>>> anything, but I hope they would.
>
> because their nominator opted out of that. In other words, based
> solely on the nominator, some stories would get an extra hook with
> which to lure in readers while other stories would get nothing at all.
> And I don't see that as fair.
>

> Beyond that, there's already something of a recommendation system in
> place. Sort of. Someone else (Dwim, maybe?) mentioned this earlier,
> but once in a while I would be borderline as to whether or not I
> should go ahead and read a story and one of the deciding factors was
> the story's nominator. If I knew the nominator and knew the
> nominator's taste in fics, that was an influence (both good and bad).
> And while writing out a recommendation might be further impetus to
> read a story, I'm still going to trust a recommendation more if I
> trust the person who nominated the story in the first place.
>

> Oh, and to answer one of Marta's questions, I like #2 (stories per
> nominator) but if for some reason it doesn't go through, I like #4
> also (stories per nominator per time period).
>

> As for what numbers should be set on this...I nominated 23 pieces this
> year, but that's a deceptive number because I would have nominated
> many more if other people hadn't nominated them first. (I was slow
> coming out of the starting gate.) So I would chafe if we set a
> nomination cap at anything lower than 20.
>
> However, there's a flipside to this: Perhaps there are forty stories
> that you'd love to nominate but you are only allowed to nominate
> fifteen of them. There's a very good chance that others will nominate
> some of the remaining twenty-five. I ran into that this year. I had a
> host of stories I wanted to nominate but found that many of them had
> already been nominated. So while some of us might cringe at numbers
> like fifteen or ten (I REALLY cringe at ten, btw) there is the
> possibility that others will nominate what we don't.
>

>
>
> On 3 Nov 2005, at 02:48, MarigoldCotton@a... wrote:
>
> > I like this idea. If nominations are going to be limited per
> > person,
> > then it should be easier for most folks to get them done in a
> > timely
> > manner. I'd appreciate having a bit of the time from nominating
> > season
> > allocated to reading season and/or voting season.
> >
>
> That sounds reasonable to me. How long is long enough? If we had a
> month-long reading season (instead of six weeks) would that be
> enough
> time?
>
> Cheers,
> Marta

>> I can see that. I'm tempted to suggest that the author be allowed
>> to write their own recommendation if they like in this situation,
>> but that seems a bit contrary to the spirit of the recommendation.
>> Besides the author is already writing the summary.

>> I mentioned in my reply to Rabidsamfan that I recommended a size
>> limit on these in part because of display issues on the page with
>> multiple nominations (the "browse stories" page). However, if you
>> put them on the "story details" page
>> (http://gabrielle.sytes.net/MEFA2005/index.php?
>> page=storyDetails&form_id=137 , for example) we wouldn't have
>> those display issues. It also might not be such a disadvantage to
>> the stories that don't have a recommendation. What do you think?

>> I never paid much attention to this, FWIW. Also, I think Anthony
>> is talking about removing this from the "browse stories" page. And
>> this could possibly be interpreted as cliquishness, or even lead to
>> it in truth. I'm not saying you want to do that, Thundera, more
>> pointing out the possibility.

>
> -- Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> >> I can see that. I'm tempted to suggest that the author be allowed
> >> to write their own recommendation if they like in this situation,
> >> but that seems a bit contrary to the spirit of the
> >> recommendation. Besides the author is already writing the
> >> summary.
>
> Exactly, and that's another point against the idea of
> recommendations, particularly optional ones. One of the things I

> authors to get their work out for others to see. But if these
> stories don't have a recommendation attached to them because they're
> self-nominated while other stories not self-nominated do, we've just
> given them an extra handicap they have to overcome. I have to say
> that the more I think about this idea, the less I like it.

> >> I mentioned in my reply to Rabidsamfan that I recommended a size
> >> limit on these in part because of display issues on the page with
> >> multiple nominations (the "browse stories" page). However, if you
> >> put them on the "story details" page
> >> (http://gabrielle.sytes.net/MEFA2005/index.php?
> >> page=storyDetails&form_id=137 , for example) we wouldn't have
> >> those display issues. It also might not be such a disadvantage to
> >> the stories that don't have a recommendation. What do you think?
>
> I like that even less, actually. Here's the problem I'm seeing: The
> readers who click on the story details page looking for reviews are
> those readers who are more likely to be influenced when they find no
> review at all or a very short. So those stories still get the

> or no reviews aren't going to bother with the story details page and
> instead click right to the story (if they're going to read it). So
> for them, the recommendations were written for no reason at all. So
> the group who doesn't bother with that never sees the
> recommendations and the group that does see them is the group most
> likely to read a story that had an eloquent nominator. The handicap
> gets bigger.

> And the moral? The same thing will happen with recommendations. At
> least, for me it will. If I'm not pressed for time, I'll read just
> about anything. But if I don't have that luxury, I'm going to be

> reading and easier reviewing. Essentially, I see recommendations
> making a potential problem even worse.

> > I like this idea. If nominations are going to be limited per person,
> > then it should be easier for most folks to get them done in a timely
> > manner. I'd appreciate having a bit of the time from nominating season
> > allocated to reading season and/or voting season.
> >
>
> That sounds reasonable to me. How long is long enough? If we had a
> month-long reading season (instead of six weeks) would that be enough
> time?
>
> Cheers,
> Marta

>
> > That sounds reasonable to me. How long is long enough? If we had a
> > month-long reading season (instead of six weeks) would that be
> > enough
> > time?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Marta
>
> Marta, did you mean to say a month-long *nominating* season? (I don't
> think anyone was suggesting shortening reading season!) If so then
> yes, I think a month for nominations would be enough...
>
> Kathy/Inkling

>
> > > I like this idea. If nominations are going to be limited per person,
> > > then it should be easier for most folks to get them done in a timely
> > > manner. I'd appreciate having a bit of the time from nominating season
> > > allocated to reading season and/or voting season.
> > >
> >
> > That sounds reasonable to me. How long is long enough? If we had a
> > month-long reading season (instead of six weeks) would that be enough
> > time?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Marta
>
> I didn't get the difference in reading season and voting season, except in
> voting season a final review is final. I started my reviews out as
> tentative
> anyway, when I thought they were good enough. I used Draft for stories
> read
> but won't do a review. Since you can already write reviews during reading
> season, as a voter I took the whole reading/voting thing as a
> technicality.
> I would appreciate to get a bit more time for reading and writing reviews
> overall.

> 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 posted
> to archives they did not usually read.

> 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 the
> information in an Excel document. Lots of behind-the-scenes work.

On 11/3/05, rhapsody_the_bard <rhapsody74@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oh and on a complete different note. Marta, what on earth do you mean
> with caps?
>
> Rhapsody

I probably could be clearer on that.
When I say cap, I mean the limit of the number of nominations a person
could make. So if we agree that people should be able to nominate twenty
pieces, that's a cap of 20. If we say 10 stories and 5 drabbles. that's a
story cap of 10 and a drabble cap of 5.
Is that clearer?
Marta
--
"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."

(Nelson Mandela)


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

> I didn't get the difference in reading season and voting season,
> except in
> voting season a final review is final. I started my reviews out as
> tentative
> anyway, when I thought they were good enough. I used Draft for stories
> read
> but won't do a review. Since you can already write reviews during
> reading
> season, as a voter I took the whole reading/voting thing as a
> technicality.
> I would appreciate to get a bit more time for reading and writing
> reviews
> overall.

>> On 3 Nov 2005, at 02:48, MarigoldCotton@a... wrote:
>>
>> >  I like this idea. If nominations are going to be limited per
>> > person,
>> > then it should be easier for most folks to get them done in a
>> > timely
>> > manner. I'd appreciate having a bit of the time from nominating
>> > season
>> > allocated to reading season and/or voting season.
>> >
>>
>> That sounds reasonable to me. How long is long enough? If we had a
>> month-long reading season (instead of six weeks) would that be
>> enough
>> time?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Marta
>
>Marta, did you mean to say a month-long *nominating* season? (I don't
>think anyone was suggesting shortening reading season!) If so then
>yes, I think a month for nominations would be enough...
>
>Kathy/Inkling

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>Sam, in Mordor, RoTK

On 11/3/05, Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > > Can we modify this one to "require the nominator to submit a
> > > > "nomination
> > > > comment" rather than a vote?
> >
> > <snippage>
> > > Hmm, this idea has potential. Would you be okay if we made this
> > > optional? A nominator can put in a brief comment on what they like
> > > about the story. And I emphasise short -- maybe 200 characters max.
> > If
> > > a nominator doesn't want to, they don't have to include anything,
> > but I
> > > hope they would.
> > >
> > > I hurry to add that this isn't to make the nominator "justify" his
> > or
> > > her choice -- it's to explain that choice to other readers. For
> > example
> > > I like pieces that look at ceremonies and traditions and different
> > > aspects of cultures. I'll enjoy pieces that focus on individuals,
> > but
> > > if a piece said that it did a good job developing a coming-of-age
> > > ceremony for Rohan I would probably be more likely to read that.
> >
> > Optional is good, although I'll admit to preferring required. I'm a
> > children's librarian, and I purchase books by looking at reviews --
> > even a
> > short review tells me a little about the nominator as well as the
> > story
> > being reviewed, and after a while I know whose opinions and tastes
> > are a
> > reliable match for my own. And I honestly don't see a short comment (I
> > wouldn't put a maximum on it, but I suspect most would be short
> > anyway) as a
> > horrible burden. If I like something well enough to nom, I like it
> > well
> > enough to take five more minutes.
> >
>
> I suggest a minimum for several reasons:
>
> - display. If these are to be displayed on the page of nominations like
> the summary, they need to be pretty short. (This is less of a concern
> if you only make them visible from the "full" story details -- where
> you display just one story's information on a page -- but also less
> visible.)
> - fairness, both to those authors whose nominators choose not to
> recommend, and those whose nominators aren't that verbose.
> - ease of use for nominator. If there's a 250-character cap, hopefully
> people won't feel guilty for not writing 500.
>
> > > And let me add 7. Put a limit of three on self-nominations, but
> > allow
> > > > for
> > > > stories which people want to submit to be "seconded" by another
> > > > person. In
> > > > other words, if I have five drabbles I think ought to be
> > considered, I
> > > > submit all five to the "second me" list, and if two of them get
> > > > seconded by
> > > > another nominator, then the remaining three can go up under my own
> > > > aegis.
> > > > But if only one gets seconded, then I have to pick three to push
> > this
> > > > year
> > > > and save the last one for next year.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can you explain more how you see this working in a little bit more
> > > depth? If I second a self-nomination, does that take one of my
> > > nominations?
> >
> > Hmm. I wasn't thinking in terms of an overall limit (because I don't
> > actually much favor it), just a limit on self-noms, but if there were
> > a
> > limit I'd say a "second" counts as half a nom, or not limit the
> > number of
> > "seconds" at all. I see it as a simple "ooh, yes please" kind of vote,
> > possibly with a short comment if those end up being required.
> >
>
> If we do this I would favor going with no limits on "seconds", and
> perhaps a lower number of nominations because of that. If we did this
> I'd also recommend making *all* self-nominations require a second. I
> think it would just be too complicated anyway.
>
> But I'm really not that crazy about about this idea. I think it's good
> in principle but would be too complicated for the nominator. It would
> also probably require a lot of coding for Anthony. I think with the
> limit on nominations people will hae to think more about their
> nominations in general and so will have to make less self-nominations
> as well.
>
> > > From an administrative POV I love self-nominations. There's much less
> > > work to do, and I know the author's correct email address, so
> > there's
> > > no problem getting in touch with the author. Also, if someone is
> > > involved enough to nominate stories, I think they have a right for
> > > their stories to participate if they think they're good enough.
> > With a
> > > limit on the number of nominations now, I know that I would have to
> > sit
> > > and think long and hard about what pieces to self-nominate if I
> > choose
> > > to do so. But then I write mostly one-shots and drabbles. I could
> > > probably use all of my nominations on myself if I chose to do so,
> > and
> > > still have pieces from the last year left over.
> >
> > I write drabbles myself, when the muse is functional, so I have a lot
> > of
> > individual pieces, but having a limit on self-noms would force me to
> > make
> > sure that I was submitting my best stuff. And requiring a "second"
> > for more
> > than a few of my self-noms would guarantee that I wasn't the only
> > person
> > interested. Since there's no time limit, I can save stuff for next
> > year,
> > when I might be a bit more impartial about it. And since there's no
> > limit on
> > the number of pieces which other folks can nominate of mine, it's not
> > like I
> > won't have multiple entries if I'm any good at all.
>
> I'd rather not change too much about any one area too quickly. Part of
> the reason is that if we change too much we won't know which of the
> things we change is actually helping. Also, it means that there's more
> that the nominators have to adjust to, and more that has to be coded
> into the site. So if you don't mind, can we hold on to this idea and
> reconsider it next year? I really think that limit on numbers of
> nominations will limit the number of self-nominations, but if it turns
> out I'm wrong we'll certainly consider more changes next year.
>
> If you haven't noticed I'm in favor of gradual changes rather than
> quick ones - I think those are the kinds that usually last.
>
> Cheers,
> Marta
>
>
> ------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> - Visit your group "MEFAwards<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEFAwards>"
> on the web.
> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>


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