Misfit Angel
Normal is an illusion
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,822
- Reaction score
- 1,308
I imagine Magic: The Gathering discussion would fall in the Entertainment Inc. section. It's the one that seems to fit the most.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I imagine Magic: The Gathering discussion would fall in the Entertainment Inc. section. It's the one that seems to fit the most.
We would only stick to one, as both rules would require people to nominate not as high profile work, and the first option would require people to change their nominations. If someone only read three stories and came to the awards and all three had been nominated, they would then be left with nothing to nominate. One at least gives people more freedom, but we would examine it in later awards if we had to. Ultimately what we are asking is what people prefer around compulsory voting, as I am not letting in compulsory voting and then everyone just nominates The Long Walk or something to be eligible.As for compulsory voting, I don't see a problem except that "at least one" is too low. At least 2, or probably even 3, is what I'd aim for. It is not that unreasonable to ask someone to spend a few hours between each awards reading 2 or 3 fics that, more likely than not, will provide them with inspiration for their own stories.
The easiest solution to voting would be that we actually have a wide range of nominations in the first place. If we have an even mix between recurring and new nominees, we probably won't have to change anything about voting. We'd only make changes if, after all this, we still end up with only a few fresh nominees.b) don't double up with compulsory voting.
The easiest solution to voting would be that we actually have a wide range of nominations in the first place. If we have an even mix between recurring and new nominees, we probably won't have to change anything about voting. We'd only make changes if, after all this, we still end up with only a few fresh nominees.
Summer is always more popular than winter, but this winter was I think the worst awards in terms of turn out we've had for quite some time. Only six/seven people nominated anything this time, and normally we at least get in the double digits. It was also the first time we've had to drop categories. We will see what effect these changes have next season and see what needs adapting.I think we're finally in agreement. Before I forget though, I would strongly suggest to test it for a few seasons. Remember that one where we had over seventy nominees? That was last winter, I think, and the summer wasn't too shabby (Could be misremembering). Thoughts for the future
I, now, put the original chapters in spoilers at the bottom of the post partly for continuity purposes, though I may be the only one. I would encourage people to keep some copy of their older copies around as proof, but I do agree it will be tricky to monitor and control. I think we have to at least provide some sort of option.Okay, I thought about it more and at least one probably seems fine. Though I'm interested to see if anyone has tried to come up with any way to "prove" edits have been made and that they're substantial enough to be eligible. Whatever the method is, it should also encourage me to edit instead of thinking it's not worth it.
Summer is always more popular than winter, but this winter was I think the worst awards in terms of turn out we've had for quite some time. Only six/seven people nominated anything this time, and normally we at least get in the double digits. It was also the first time we've had to drop categories. We will see what effect these changes have next season and see what needs adapting.
I, now, put the original chapters in spoilers at the bottom of the post partly for continuity purposes, though I may be the only one. I would encourage people to keep some copy of their older copies around as proof, but I do agree it will be tricky to monitor and control. I think we have to at least provide some sort of option.
If they only edited five sentences, they would not be allowed to use that as a reasonable excuse. I am talking about substantive, obvious edits. You could look at the first arc of Eight Easy Steps and compare the chapters: that is the sort of editing I am thinking.But that's not concrete proof until someone analyzes it to approve the edits to be substantial enough for eligibility, is it? I can say I edited, but what if I only added in, like, 5 sentences total?
It is more about stories not being judged on the same content over and over again. If someone just posts one very short chapter, there is nothing really new, comparatively, to judge. If someone posts 15/20k words and they are still of a high quality, I am more than happy to give them an award again, but it seems silly to give them an award if they only updated the story, like people said, a day or two before the awards began. You'd have to think about Best Story: does something deserve to win the top award two seasons in a row if they only posted one new chapter that didn't really move the plot along?Hmm,
I'm not against the new rules, but to me it does seem like the winners already vary frequently due to a change in judges, so to enforce this sort of limit is a tad funny in my opinion, but I can see the reason, especially with other categories/ones that only receive a few nominations. That said, I do feel that a winner should not be reached/picked from a pool that doesn't have all available options simply because one has already won, otherwise it lowers the standard of the awards, in my opinion. I can understand only wanting to award stories that are still being worked upon and not wanting to give an award to the same story over and over, and the limit is very reasonable, but perhaps instead of completely banning them from the awards, a point reduction could occur in the overall section? Say, if they only updated 5,000 words, they would lose 15 points or something. Again, not against the idea, but personally I don't see the current system as a huge problem. (Though I did not pay the best attention to the awards this season, so I'm obviously not the best informed here.)
Perhaps, if wanting to help promote new stories and authors within the community is big priority, then what about adding a category such as "Best New Story"? It wouldn't require any extra judging, which is the biggest pro I can think of, and it also gives authors (new and old) hopes of winning an award against long-running stories.
I do agree with the nomination part, though, particularly the first idea. If you want to nominate your own work, you should have to nominate others too. It not only helps with adding nominations, but gives a good incentive to read.
If they only edited five sentences, they would not be allowed to use that as a reasonable excuse. I am talking about substantive, obvious edits. You could look at the first arc of Eight Easy Steps and compare the chapters: that is the sort of editing I am thinking.
Speaking of awards, when will the 2015 winter banners be ready?