Yahoo Forum Archive

Hey guys,

I've read through a lot of the posts that have been made about the different scoring
systems that have been proposed (10-pt, 5-pt, pure character count, etc.) I'm receiving
the posts by digest but I happened to read at the website today, so I'm caught up through
Dwim's last post.

Originally I was prepared to set up a poll and was actually going to do that tonight. But I've
been thinking about it. There seems to be a lot of disagreement on this, too much for me
to be comfortable changing what's a pretty fundamental part of these awards.

There are some things that are so central that I doubt they'll ever change. I'm talking about
things like having voting be done by making comments. Then there are other things that
are pretty cosmetic and I'm happy to go with what the majority wants, like the name of an
award or whether to have a certain category. Then there's a third category of issues, and I
think the scoring issue falls into this group: things that are pretty central to the awards,
but not so much so that I don't think we can change them if there's a consensus that they
need to be changed. Another example of this would be the authors awards. How we
handle those is definitely up for debate, but there has to be a stronger consensus than a
simple majority.

So we have this issue of how exactly to count votes. It's not something I'm willing to
change unless there's a consensus here, and I don't think we're likely to get that. So I think
we should just stick with the 10-point system that we had this year. Debating the others
isn't likely to move us forward.

I'll try to get through some more emails tonight. We still need to decide how exactly to
work the points.

Cheers,
Marta

I appreciate the discussion, :) great points on all sides -
especially (who?) mentioned that so many other things have changed -
I think Marta's made a good decision on this and we can discuss it
again next year if it still seems to be a problem.

Sulriel

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Marta" <melayton@g...> wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> I've read through a lot of the posts that have been made about the
different scoring > systems that have been proposed (10-pt, 5-pt,
pure character count, etc.) I'm receiving > the posts by digest but I
happened to read at the website today, so I'm caught up through
> Dwim's last post.
>
> Originally I was prepared to set up a poll and was actually going
to do that tonight. But I've > been thinking about it. There seems to
be a lot of disagreement on this, too much for me > to be comfortable
changing what's a pretty fundamental part of these awards.
>
> There are some things that are so central that I doubt they'll ever
change. I'm talking about > things like having voting be done by
making comments. Then there are other things that > are pretty
cosmetic and I'm happy to go with what the majority wants, like the
name of an > award or whether to have a certain category. Then
there's a third category of issues, and I > think the scoring issue
falls into this group: things that are pretty central to the awards,
> but not so much so that I don't think we can change them if there's
a consensus that they > need to be changed. Another example of this
would be the authors awards. How we > handle those is definitely up
for debate, but there has to be a stronger consensus than a
> simple majority.>
> So we have this issue of how exactly to count votes. It's not
something I'm willing to > change unless there's a consensus here,
and I don't think we're likely to get that. So I think > we should
just stick with the 10-point system that we had this year. Debating
the others > isn't likely to move us forward.
>
> I'll try to get through some more emails tonight. We still need to
decide how exactly to > work the points.
>
> Cheers,> Marta
>

Looking at the numbers that Anthony's given us, I think it's clear that the
current system worked just fine. A really extensive review could pull a
story into placing, and a lot of smaller reviews could do the same, which is
about right. I think his "fifty point" system would also work well, but I
also think that the debate has grown too contentious for any change in how
points are gathered to be put into place gracefully.

The one possibility that occurs to me is that we might make the "honorable
mention" slot be for the story with the highest average if it did not place
first, second, or third.

On 1/10/06, Marta <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> I've read through a lot of the posts that have been made about the
> different scoring
> systems that have been proposed (10-pt, 5-pt, pure character count, etc.)
> I'm receiving
> the posts by digest but I happened to read at the website today, so I'm
> caught up through
> Dwim's last post.
>
> Originally I was prepared to set up a poll and was actually going to do
> that tonight. But I've
> been thinking about it. There seems to be a lot of disagreement on this,
> too much for me
> to be comfortable changing what's a pretty fundamental part of these
> awards.
>
> There are some things that are so central that I doubt they'll ever
> change. I'm talking about
> things like having voting be done by making comments. Then there are other
> things that
> are pretty cosmetic and I'm happy to go with what the majority wants, like
> the name of an
> award or whether to have a certain category. Then there's a third category
> of issues, and I
> think the scoring issue falls into this group: things that are pretty
> central to the awards,
> but not so much so that I don't think we can change them if there's a
> consensus that they
> need to be changed. Another example of this would be the authors awards.
> How we
> handle those is definitely up for debate, but there has to be a stronger
> consensus than a
> simple majority.
>
> So we have this issue of how exactly to count votes. It's not something
> I'm willing to
> change unless there's a consensus here, and I don't think we're likely to
> get that. So I think
> we should just stick with the 10-point system that we had this year.
> Debating the others
> isn't likely to move us forward.
>
> I'll try to get through some more emails tonight. We still need to decide
> how exactly to
> work the points.
>
> Cheers,
> Marta
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Business writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Business+writing+book&w1=Business+writing+book&w2=Writing+child+book&w3=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w4=Writing+book&w5=Book+writing+software&w6=Creative+writing+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=U6cy70mxhiGiozfqO6-5oA> Writing
> child book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+child+book&w1=Business+writing+book&w2=Writing+child+book&w3=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w4=Writing+book&w5=Book+writing+software&w6=Creative+writing+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=rRqFLonpld7USMr4VtPtlg> Writing
> and publishing a book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w1=Business+writing+book&w2=Writing+child+book&w3=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w4=Writing+book&w5=Book+writing+software&w6=Creative+writing+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=ooMHFU6qevVBFV51GoYS3w> Writing
> book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+book&w1=Business+writing+book&w2=Writing+child+book&w3=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w4=Writing+book&w5=Book+writing+software&w6=Creative+writing+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=YZNvbCkZrLgigE4boYyPSg> Book
> writing software<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Book+writing+software&w1=Business+writing+book&w2=Writing+child+book&w3=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w4=Writing+book&w5=Book+writing+software&w6=Creative+writing+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=E-aHyy85Ga8Hd8OnmyD8Bw> Creative
> writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Creative+writing+book&w1=Business+writing+book&w2=Writing+child+book&w3=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w4=Writing+book&w5=Book+writing+software&w6=Creative+writing+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=D7WluWje-oLfqaDxkAqGBw>
> ------------------------------
> 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]

Just finishing Monday, but if it comes to that, Marta, I say we tweak the
2004, as Anthony showed it did a better job of weighting to shorter votes.

--Ainaechoiriel
MEFA Admin and Founder

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

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

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Marta
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 11:10 PM
> To: mefawards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MEFAwards] scoring systems
>
> Hey guys,
>
> I've read through a lot of the posts that have been made
> about the different scoring systems that have been proposed
> (10-pt, 5-pt, pure character count, etc.) I'm receiving the
> posts by digest but I happened to read at the website today,
> so I'm caught up through Dwim's last post.
>
> Originally I was prepared to set up a poll and was actually
> going to do that tonight. But I've been thinking about it.
> There seems to be a lot of disagreement on this, too much for
> me to be comfortable changing what's a pretty fundamental
> part of these awards.
>
> There are some things that are so central that I doubt
> they'll ever change. I'm talking about things like having
> voting be done by making comments. Then there are other
> things that are pretty cosmetic and I'm happy to go with what
> the majority wants, like the name of an award or whether to
> have a certain category. Then there's a third category of
> issues, and I think the scoring issue falls into this group:
> things that are pretty central to the awards, but not so much
> so that I don't think we can change them if there's a
> consensus that they need to be changed. Another example of
> this would be the authors awards. How we handle those is
> definitely up for debate, but there has to be a stronger
> consensus than a simple majority.
>
> So we have this issue of how exactly to count votes. It's not
> something I'm willing to change unless there's a consensus
> here, and I don't think we're likely to get that. So I think
> we should just stick with the 10-point system that we had
> this year. Debating the others isn't likely to move us forward.
>
> I'll try to get through some more emails tonight. We still
> need to decide how exactly to work the points.
>
> Cheers,
> Marta
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:24:14 -0500
> From: rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: scoring systems
>
> The one possibility that occurs to me is that we might make the
> "honorable
> mention" slot be for the story with the highest average if it did not
> place
> first, second, or third.
>
>

This idea has a lot of merit, but I wouldn't want it to be the only
honourable mention we award because it would only be one story, and in
most categories no stories at all. Provided the programming isn't
infeasible, how would you guys feel about awarding honourable mentions
based on more than one criteria?

Marta