Yahoo Forum Archive

and only peeking at a few posts, so pardon if I don't hit on all the topics
or points.

Two things I saw:

1) no self-nominations. Okay the post I saw said it was unlikely this would
come t o pass and I'd say you betcha to that. Why self-nominations? Because
I created this program to be like the Alt StarTrek Creative Awards, where
there was no committee running quality control to see whose stories were
worthy of competing. You posted during the year? You're in. Be your story
drek or gem. If it's drek, it will probably be found to be so and not get
many, if any reviews. if it's a gem, ideally, gems come to the top.

We aren't a newsgroup or archive to post in. That's the ONLY reason we have
nominations. Not for quaility control. We're not the fanfic cops saying
that only these particular stories are the best out there. Self-nominations
mimicks that act of posting to the newsgroup. You saying, "I've got a
story. I'd like it to be read. Let the chips fall as they may." I have
self-nominated every one of my stories to kind of lead by example. No
stigma on self-nomination. That's about as democratic as we can make it.
Ever reader has a vote. Every story has the same chance of being read as any
other. Drek or gem.

2) Not voting on what we nominate? What? No, that does not equal a "vote".
Nominating gain no points. No way for that story to win just because it was
nominated. And while an author may be honored that someone nominated his or
her story, it's not nearly so nice as review. Feedback! That's where the
vote comes in. (And that's the main point of these awards, remember.) When I
nominate a story, I intend to vote on it (and did last year). I want to
tell people WHY I nominated it. WHY I thought it was so good, WHY I think
it should win the award. And, if that rule were to be made, you'd be
putting a stigma on self-nominations. No, you can never vote on your own
stories. But people whose stories were nominated by someone else are put
then on a higher pedastal than than those who nominated their own stuff.
That nomination IS you kudo if you can't vote on what you nominate. A
self-nominator is kudo-less by default.

Personally, I do think you should review a story you nominate if it's not
your own story. Why? Because you obviously liked it or you wouldn't have
nominated it. I know I didn't measure up to that this year. As always, I
blame Rob. Next year, I'll be a newlywed, and probably just as busy. The
year after that, I'll be preparing for adoption. Then I'll be a mom! Who
knows if I'll ever find that time I had during the 2004 MEFA's again.
Still, I'll hope that if I nominate only two stories (that aren't mine) next
year, I'll review them so anyone can know why I nominated them.

Just please try to look at it this way, we want to mimick the democracy of
that newsgroup AS IF we had our own archive to post to. Every story is
equal. In that newgroup, no one nominated anything. I'd love it if we
could do that without having an archive but I don't see how that can
possibly work. I just don't have the bandwidth or the time to maintain an
archive of that nature and I don't reccommend that people post to more than
a few archives anyway (hard to update them all when you find a typo). Do we
start a newsgroup then? Or allow posting of stories on the Yahoo Group as a
way of building our pool of elligible stories? Those are possibilities. Or
we just keep trying to mimick it by having loose nominations.

Okay, I'd better get back to work.
--Ainaechoiriel
MEFA Admin and Founder

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

<http://gabrielle.sytes.net/mefa> http://gabrielle.sytes.net/mefa The
Middle-Earth Fanfiction Awards

Blog: <http://www.ainaechoiriel.blogspot.com/>
http://www.ainaechoiriel.blogspot.com



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

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Ainaechoiriel" <mefaadmin@e...>

> wrote:
> <snip>
> We aren't a newsgroup or archive to post in. That's the ONLY
> reason we have nominations.
> <snip>
> In that newgroup, no one nominated anything. I'd love it if we
> could do that without having an archive but I don't see how that can
> possibly work. I just don't have the bandwidth or the time to
> maintain an archive of that nature and I don't reccommend that
> people post to more than a few archives anyway (hard to update them
> all when you find a typo). Do we start a newsgroup then? Or allow
> posting of stories on the Yahoo Group as a way of building our pool
> of elligible stories? Those are possibilities. Or we just keep
> trying to mimick it by having loose nominations.

Ainae,

I can think of only one other way to accomplish what you're
describing: If the MEFAs were limited to self-nominations only, it
would be somewhat like having no nominations. Sort of a radical idea,
I know, but hey, I'm feeling reckless tonight! ;)

Kathy (Inkling)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kathy
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 1:03 AM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MEFAwards] Re: Just poking my head in
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Ainaechoiriel" <mefaadmin@e...>
> > wrote:
> > <snip>
> > We aren't a newsgroup or archive to post in. That's the
> ONLY reason
> > we have nominations.
> > <snip>
> > In that newgroup, no one nominated anything. I'd love it
> if we could
> > do that without having an archive but I don't see how that can
> > possibly work. I just don't have the bandwidth or the time to
> > maintain an archive of that nature and I don't reccommend
> that people
> > post to more than a few archives anyway (hard to update
> them all when
> > you find a typo). Do we start a newsgroup then? Or allow
> posting of
> > stories on the Yahoo Group as a way of building our pool of
> elligible
> > stories? Those are possibilities. Or we just keep trying
> to mimick
> > it by having loose nominations.
>
> Ainae,
>
> I can think of only one other way to accomplish what you're
> describing: If the MEFAs were limited to self-nominations
> only, it would be somewhat like having no nominations. Sort
> of a radical idea, I know, but hey, I'm feeling reckless tonight! ;)
>
> Kathy (Inkling)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------

There's a thought. And I'm not against it. Just worry that there might not
be enough knowledge of the MEFAs out there to draw the stories. Oh, there
might be now. I know it wouldn't have worked the first year. Something to
think about.

Another topic to poke my head in about: reading reviews

Just my experience (not in 2005 though): I will read what I'm intersted in
anyway, but sometimes someone else's review will make me go 'hmmmmm' and
perhaps want to read the story even though it didn't originally make my
list. It might prompt me to step outside my box, so to speak. It's not a
matter of who wrote it but what was written (the review, I mean). I'd hate
to miss a gem by sheer ignorance.

Now remembering that I'm drawing from ASC experience, there is no reading
season. That's the whole posting year. I might have read stories that are
elligible during the year and am ready to vote on them. Then awards time
comes and votes are posted. I admit, there are fewer of them than what the
MEFA's has generated, and I don't read every one even then (I won't read
Archer/Reed slash regardless of any glowing reviews, for example). So I
read the reviews and some of those reviews might get me to read another
story. That's how I discovered Sisko9725 (or whatever numbers are after his
name). He didn't write about Bashir. So I wouldn't have put his stories on
my list. It was the reviews that lead me to the stories and in doing so I
found the best author of 2004, to my mind.

Okay, back to work. Wait. Maybe I shouldn't say that. I said that yesterday
and got a migraine and had to go home early and lie down in pain for 4.5
more hours.....Okay, maybe I'll just say that I've got to go pay attention
to things for which I get paid.

--Ainaechoiriel
MEFA Admin and Founder

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

http://gabrielle.sytes.net/mefa The Middle-Earth Fanfiction Awards

Blog: http://www.ainaechoiriel.blogspot.com

Hi Kathy,

On 8 Nov 2005, at 02:02, Kathy wrote:

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Ainaechoiriel" <mefaadmin@e...>
> > wrote:
> > <snip>
> > We aren't a newsgroup or archive to post in.  That's the ONLY
> > reason we have nominations. 
> > <snip>
> > In that newgroup, no one nominated anything.  I'd love it if we
> > could do that without having an archive but I don't see how that can
> > possibly work.  I just don't have the bandwidth or the time to
> > maintain an archive of that nature and I don't reccommend that
> > people post to more than a few archives anyway (hard to update them
> > all when you find a typo).  Do we start a newsgroup then?  Or allow
> > posting of stories on the Yahoo Group as a way of building our pool
> > of elligible stories?  Those are possibilities.  Or we just keep
> > trying to mimick it by having loose nominations.
>
> Ainae,
>
> I can think of only one other way to accomplish what you're
> describing: If the MEFAs were limited to self-nominations only, it
> would be somewhat like having no nominations. Sort of a radical idea,
> I know, but hey, I'm feeling reckless tonight! ;)
>
> Kathy (Inkling)
>

Personally I don't like this would be a good idea. I like
self-nominations, but I really like the ability to nominate other
pieces as well. It makes the whole nomination thing so much less of an
honour. And it really does penalise those authors who aren't willing to
put their own work forward. There are quite a few out there who just
aren't that bold.

More than that, I think it is the reader who often tells an author that
a certain piece is well-liked. Not well-done, but definitely
well-liked. To give a personal example, I was truly astounded by how
well people responded to my drabble "The Heirs of Isildur". I never
expected anyone to remember it. And while I think it is a good drabble,
it didn't receive so many more reviews when I first published it than
anything else I was writing around the same time. So imagine my
surprise when someone else nominated it, not to mention voted for it in
such numbers? I'd hate to deny that feeling to other authors.

Cheers,
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)

On 7 Nov 2005, at 16:16, Ainaechoiriel wrote:

> and only peeking at a few posts, so pardon if I don't hit on all the
> topics
> or points.
>
> Two things I saw:
>

<snippage>

Hi Ainae,

You bring up a lot of points here, but they're all sort of interrelated
in my mind for some reason so I'm going to reply to them all together
instead of by replying to bits and pieces.

I think we all appreciate you bringing your experiences with the ASC
awards to us here in the LOTR fandom. I'm grateful the ASCs provided
the inspiration for a different and very welcome kind of award for this
fandom. However, I think we need to recognise that the MEFAs are not
the ASCs, and that the environment in which the MEFAs operates is
somewhat different to that surrounding the ASCs.

I doubt I'm alone in believing that "because the ASCs do it this way"
is a sufficient reason for the MEFAs to also do something that way. Of
course we should look at how the ASCs do things and borrow the elements
of that award that will also work for us. But we shouldn't be afraid to
make changes where it's appropriate for the MEFAs. If there's a good
reason why an ASC policy will work for us, let's discuss that reason,
and evaluate the idea fairly based on its merits for us.

Regarding self-nominations, I think it's important to remember that the
MEFAs aren't an archive-specific award like the ASCs. They're meant to
encompass every Tolkien fanfic piece available publicly. At the ASCs,
pretty much everyone knows all the authors by reputation and has some
feel for what they (the reader) will enjoy and what they won't. But
that's just not true for the MEFAs.

I think the MEFAs have done three things in particular for this fandom:
encourage feedback; recognise good work across the fandom and not just
a particular archive; and encourage people to widen their reading
outside the authors or subjects they normally read. I believe a big
part of the reason for this last point is that many of the stories at
the MEFAs are nominated by someone else. That means someone has said "I
think this story is worthwhile". For the people who do choose to
self-nominate, there's a standard set by those already-nominated
pieces. This encourages self-nominations to really be the best work an
author has done, which in turn encourages many readers (myself
included) to spend time trying out stories by authors new to us or
about races or in genres we don't generally read.

Naturally, I've stumbled across some stories I haven't enjoyed in the
last two years, but on the whole I've found that I've enjoyed pieces
nominated for these awards. The nominations have a reputation for a
higher over-all quality than I might find in a general archive. So I
have to disagree strongly with your comment that even the worst stories
deserve to compete in the MEFAs, and that the only reason we have
nominations is because stories aren't posted at the newsgroup and not
for quality control. I respect my fellow reviewers too much to waste
their time like that. I won't nominate a story unless I'd feel
comfortable recommending it to a friend, whether it's my own story or
someone else's.

Also, when you say that an author should feel free to nominate their
story even if they think it's dreck, it's very easy for others to infer
from your words that self-nominated stories aren't held to the same
standard as stories nominated by a third party. Because who would
nominate a story by another author if they didn't like the story? So
you're reinforcing the kind of stigma that exists around
self-nomination that several people have already noted. I really don't
think that's your ultimate reason for championing self-nominations.

I think the strength of the MEFAs lies in the current mixed nomination
system. They not only recognise the "best" stories in terms of those
that are placed or receive honourable mentions but also, through the
nomination process, the many good stories and authors out there that
are worth reding. To be nominated by someone else is, in itself, an
award. Yet I like self-nominations too: they give all authors but
particularly new or less well-known ones, a chance to get their work
read more widely. I like self-nominations, will probably put forward
several of my own, and really don't want people to feel like
self-nominations are second-class nominations. For that reason I think
it's very important that authors who choose to self-nominate hold their
work to the same standard they would if they were nominating someone
else's work. If you were not the author, would you still nominate this
piece?

> Personally, I do think you should review a story you nominate if it's
> not
> your own story. Why? Because you obviously liked it or you wouldn't
> have
> nominated it. I know I didn't measure up to that this year. As
> always, I
> blame Rob. Next year, I'll be a newlywed, and probably just as busy.
> The
> year after that, I'll be preparing for adoption. Then I'll be a mom!
> Who
> knows if I'll ever find that time I had during the 2004 MEFA's again.
> Still, I'll hope that if I nominate only two stories (that aren't
> mine) next
> year, I'll review them so anyone can know why I nominated them.

Ainae, you make an excellent point here about the amount of time any of
us can devote to the awards, and I think you need to consider its full
impact very carefully and recognise what it may mean. It sounds as if
your time is going to be a lot more constrained, and you're going to
have less involvement in the awards in the future than this year, which
was less than last year when you did a lot of the considerable work
involved in running these awards. This year, a lot of other people have
stepped in to take on that work, and it looks like their contribution
will increase still further as you have to step back more and more from
the admin side.

As your involvement in the MEFAs decreases, I think you also need to
accept that it's only reasonable that your control of the format of the
awards must also decrease. It's simply not fair to those people who
*are* putting in the man-hours. The awards need to evolve in line with
the wishes of thoose who have the time, interest, and energy to
participate. That's why we're having the debate and public post-mortem,
after all, instead of deciding these things in private email. We
shouldn't expect people to pattern the MEFAs after a set of awards
taking place in different circumstances which only a few people really
know.

> Just please try to look at it this way, we want to mimick the
> democracy of
> that newsgroup
>

And I think that, by debating how the awards should work, listening to
everyone's views and arguments, and then holding polls to decide policy
based on the majority of views, we are creating the democracy you're
looking for. Surely democracy means that no one voice, even that of a
founder, should negate the wishes of the majority of participants?

Cheers,
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]