Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related MERRIWEATHER AWARDS

Well.

First of all, although she might not want to hear it, I *do* congratulate LauraBF on her win, now that she's gotten her scores and confirmed that they're accurate. Any perceived implication that she hadn't deserved the win was unintended.

Secondly, for the record, M-Comm has sent me an e-mail apologizing for the lack of communication. I found it in my in-box this morning, and it clearly indicates that it was sent before M-Comm posted on this thread. I thank M-Comm for sending that apology. The other aspects of that private e-mail need not be aired in public.

Third, that apology has nothing to do with my "losing" an award that was apparently not mine in the first place. I harbor no resentment for a more accurate tallying of points that ended up shuffling the rankings.

It would probably be wisest to leave things at that. I will certainly ignore any "whining" comments and such-like; I suppose any statement, no matter its intention, might be construed at hostile if viewed in a suspicious light. Instead, I will focus on two aspects that seem to be directly accusatory.

M-Comm (from the text, I assume it is not Katrina herself) said, on page 1 of this thread:

A lovely word, "admitted." I stated it. I was not confronted or accused. I offered that information voluntarily, without being asked for it. My only previous communications with M-Comm, before I sent that e-mail, were the submissions of my stories, the requests for my two scorecards, and an e-mail from Katrina, sent on the same night I got my "Hazel" scorecard, saying that people on the "Merriweather boards" would like to read my story. This one baffles me, frankly. What in the world was suspicious about an anonymous submission? What do you mean that you suspected that "someone else's work" was submitted to "test" you? What test was involved, exactly? Did you suspect it was plagiarized? That it belonged to someone other than "Allyse"? Your rules state that stories can only be submitted by the author. There is nothing to indicate that said author must have references as a FoLC author, or that the author is not permitted to use a pseudonym. You yourselves are anonymous. What is so suspicious about a supposedly new author? Your rules also specifically state that stories do *not* need to be somewhere on the net, but may be submitted as an e-mail attachment. Does the above statement mean that only previously posted stories qualify? If that is the case, the entire purpose of the Merriweathers seems moot. Again, why would you do such a thing? Your rules specifically state that is not required for a story to have a URL of its own. Why were you so desperate to find it? Why did you need to know the author's name before you could correct your error? It can't be in order to inform the author privately.

Your rules state that an author can only submit two stories per cycle. I did so. If I had wanted to be underhanded, then I might have submitted *two* stories under Hazel and one under Allyse. I felt myself honor-bound to restrict myself to two, even if M-Comm was unaware that Hazel and Allyse were one and the same. I regret the waste of the waste of M-Comm's time. I still do not understand why the search was required. However, "refused" suggests I was asked. I was not asked anything at all.

That seems to cover the "underhanded" and "sneaky" part of the accusation. Now for the second part: the accusation of deliberate ill intent.

I fail to see how my choice of being anonymous -- just as your choice of being anonymous -- is a "stunt." You are ascribing motives to my actions without any proof. I wrote a story specifically for the Merriweathers, because I wanted to enter the contest and I'm not a WAFFy writer. Once I had the story finished, it was an impulse to submit it completely anonymously. Why not? There was nothing to prove or test. As I wrote when I first posted "Sunrise, Sunset" on both mbs:

My choice of sending in *two* fics, rather than one, was specifically for the purpose of showing that it was not a matter of distrust. Yes, I waited until I had both scorecards, so I could compare the results. Why not? Why shouldn't I be interested in seeing the interpretations of my work? There was no intention to discredit. I can't help it if you choose to find motives where none exist.

Cindy suggested, on the same theme: Cindy, are you implying that submitting a story under a pseudonym is a deliberate attempt at havoc? Even Tempus would find that a little too ironic, coming from "Ann N."

It's simple: I wrote a specific story for the Merriweathers because WAFFs aren't my thing, and I couldn't participate otherwise. The choice to submit the story under a second pseudonym doesn't make that underhanded, but rather anonymous. And since the Merriweathers have emphasized that anonymity is the key to fair judging, I fail to see the problem with that.

Cindy thinks that only "previously posted stories" should be allowed. What's the point of the awards, then?

I will conclude this ridiculously-long post with the final three paragraphs of the e-mail I sent M-Comm this morning: Hazel

Editing this to add something that occurred to me after commenting on Paul's scorecard on the other thread: While some of us might have commented or disagreed with some of the judges' remarks, I don't think anyone has disparaged the actual judging process, either by suggesting that the judges aren't qualified or that the judging was unfair. The problems have been with M-Comm's handling of the process, not with the judges' hard work.

Just wanted to make that clear.

One of the saddest aspects of this is that 3 of our very talented writers - Jenni, Paul, and Meredith now have some doubts about the awards they have won.

Am thinking that the numeracy skills of the M-Com clearly show that they all work for either the Canadian or American Finance Departments.

c

This isn't smart. I'll just state up front that I *know* that. But before the rails come off completely, I want to take a stab at it.

No one expected the first outing to go smoothly. How could it? The Merriweathers are a brand new, very ambitious format, and it will take more
than one cycle- perhaps many- to work out the knots. I totally get that.

To-ta-lly.

So, with that firmly in mind, the things I don't understand are these:

Did Paul not win either? He said his scores were lower than Laura BF's. If that's the case, how did that happen? And who are the winners?

Why can't a story be submitted under a pen name? If the entries are judged without names, I just don't understand why that matters.

Why is Katrina's ID banned? If it's a matter of her forgetting to say "posting on behalf of Mcom" then I hope this is resolved very quickly. I don't see how we'll get this cleared up without
her being able to post.

Why the venom? As a bystander/writer who doesn't own a waffy vignette to her name, I was just waiting until the next story cycle to see what's next. But Mcom's official post was off-putting and unkind enough to give me pause.

Again, of course these events are frustrating, and no, it didn't go smoothly, but the public face of Mcom- in my opinion, which I am now just tossing about- needs to be one that's welcoming,
does it not? That encourages participants, not chases them away.

I would venture that requires a very long fuse, and a large dose of grin-and-bear-it diplomacy... or it should.

That said, I hope those who had a *positive* experience with Mcom and judging will come forward and post on it. I'd be really interested to know what you liked about it, what you found helpful, why you would enter again, etc. And maybe it would balance out the negative.

Also, I *adored* Jenni's story. Have no complaints with her taking the top prize, whatsoever. And while I certainly haven't agreed with all judges comments, they've made for interesting reading, and offered some contrasting povs. Always a good thing.

When she is able, I'd really like Katrina and Mcom to address these issues directly and clear things up for the next go-round.

I don't see any reason this has to be combative.

CC

I think you've hit the nail on the head there, Hazel.

Mistakes aren't the problem. In thirty years of being involved in fandoms and fan projects, both as observer and participant, it's been my experience that most people are tolerant, patient and understanding of mistakes. Especially in a fledgling project, just starting out. The Merriweathers aren't the first and won't be the last to have teething troubles.

It's not the problems, but how you handle the problems that counts with people and your attitude in dealing with them. And I think that's where the Merriweathers have fallen down.

I personally found the post about the error in the HM to be somewhat flippant and appallingly insensitive in tone. I'm sure that wasn't the intention, but that was definitely the result. 90% of it was taken up with the committee patting themselves on the back for being mature and adult enough to admit to their error. The actual removal of the award was dealt with almost in passing, with no real sense it seemed to me of apology or appreciation that disappointment and hurt feelings might be the consequence of this mistake.

I knew that Hazel wouldn't be devastated <g>, but I did wonder how a new author, or one less experienced or perhaps more sensitive might have been feeling at having their award ripped away from them in such a cavalier fashion. I think it could have been handled just a little more sensitively.

The second major problem, as I see it, is in communication. We all understand about real life and shrinking free time and volunteers. Hoo boy, do we understand that. We've all been there. Some of us still are.

The way to solve that problem, though, is not to ignore it, leaving a vacuum of empty silence on the mbs and emails. Especially when people have been asking questions. That just leads to a lot of people being frustrated and annoyed about essentially being ignored.

Two seconds out of your busy real life can easily solve this one though. All it takes is a simple boards post: "Look, guys, I'm sorry about this, but real life is being a bear and I have a huge email backlog. Please bear with me - I will get to you all ASAP. Apologies for the delay!" What that will get you is a lot of "Hey, don't worry about it, we understand. Just get to us when you can." posts. People will be accommodating. So long as you keep them in the loop.

Hazel's point about the Merriweather site initially containing implied criticisms of the Kerths is also well made. It made for what I consider to be a quite unnecessary sour note to start thing off on. Coupled with what seemed to be an inherent bias against angst and introspection in the judging score sheets - along with the Kerths, probably the two most bitterly argued bones of contention between the two halves of the fandom in the past - and the insistence of the committee on being anonymous, it perhaps wasn't surprising therefore that suspicions were aroused.

Given the history of conflict in our fandom, I'm surprised that the committee didn't realise just how that would be perceived. It seems impossible to believe that they were oblivious to the concerns and wariness it would cause. Especially coupled with the anti-Kerth sentiments of the website, which naturally led to speculation on who exactly was involved in the project and what their motives might be. A very bad start.

Unless, of course, they are all entirely new to the fandom, with no understanding of its history. Always possible.

As Hazel has said, divisions exist, and we have a unique perspective on things that perhaps other fandoms without our history of conflict don't. As such, it's always a wise course not just to be above board, but to be seen to be above board. I think in this fandom, making a decision to have everything shrouded in secrecy was a very bad move that was bound to cause the Merriweathers difficulties.

Having said that, far from an attitude of wanting to 'cause havoc' and 'wreck the awards', as Cindy states, the sentiment that I, personally, heard expressed time and again was that people were willing to set their (not entirely unreasonable in the circumstances) suspicions aside and give the Merriweathers and their committee the benefit of the doubt. See where this went. People were genuinely excited at this new project and genuinely keen to see it succeed.

That it has gotten off to a rocky start has more to do with the way its been handled by the committee imo, rather than any conspiracy against it.

Part of that attitude, which is never welcomed, is an apparent tendency to see the expression of legitimate concerns and questions as 'whining' or an attempt at sabotage. Again, in my experience, people will ask, guys. They're curious beggers for the most part. <g> You have to accept that your every move will be queried and deal with those queries civilly and with good humour, if you want to gain their respect and good will. If you act like you're in a siege mentality, or with hostility to questioners, people will lose faith in you pretty quickly.

In conclusion, hey, the Merriweathers have gotten off to a rocky start. Well, they're not alone. Here in the UK we still have fond memories and a wry chuckle or two over the complete fiasco that was the premiere live TV ceremony of the Brit Awards for music. A complete disaster from start to finish - I don't think a single moment of it went right. They were slammed in the press and the joke of the water cooler. <G>

The Brit Awards celebrated their 25th anniversary this year.

No reason why the Merriweathers can't get over these stumbling first baby steps and be a success either. And, despite what some may think, I think that's what most in this fandom would like to see. If the Merriweather committee are willing to learn from their mistakes and perhaps accept some friendly advice, perhaps they'll be celebrating their 25th in the years to come. And we'll all be out with the bunting and pompoms to celebrate.

LabRat

So who did win?

Jenni's story seems to be the undisputed winner of this round.

Meredith has withdrawn.

LauraBF has 250 for second place?

Paul's story got 245 but now Cindy says her story got 245. So there's a tie? There was no mention of a tie before this. And Hazel got 244 for The Evil Stepmother's Manifesto?

By my count, that makes it:

First place: Jenni (unknown)
Second place: LauraBF (250)
Third place: Paul and Cindy (tie at 245))
Honorable mention: Hazel (244)

So does this mean that the M-Comm now has to reinstate Hazel's award?

P.S. It does seem that Carol's right. The people who added up these scores must be the ones who manage the federal budget or the Social Security trust fund.

Hi everyone,

I'm coming out of lurkdom here to post my score which was 263, and being a 'canny Scott' I did check the additions.

This in no way implies I mistrusted the M-Comm, I just have a bad habit of double checking practically everything.

I thought I'd let everyone know that I do not intend to post the judges comments on my story. This is not a new decision. I never intended to post.

I've always taken the view that the judges comments were a private matter for me alone. Some nice compliments, much appreciated encouragement and some well deserved constructive critism which I hope will help me to become a better writer.

However, my decision not to post should not be taken as a critisim of those who have already posted their scoresheets -- each to their own.

I really believe that enough has been said about these awards and I have no intention to adding to these discussions.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the judges for their hard work and everyone who posted kind words about my story.

I do hope that in the future good will might prevail and the Merriweathers will go forward to earn their right to exist, not in competition to the Kerths, but alongside them as another high point in our folcdom.

Yours Jenni

The board administrators have discussed the Merriweather Committee's request to close this thread, and the misuse of the Katrinalee user ID. We take extremely seriously the misuse of password information, *especially* since on these boards entry to the nfic forum is via user ID and not via a separate password. We are amending the boards FAQ to make it clear that any user caught redistributing their user ID in future will be banned.

However, as Katrinalee has now contacted us as we requested, we have decided to reset Katrinalee's user ID and allow her to post again. This is her first and last warning. We will be monitoring the IP addresses - meaning there should be a reasonable amount of different IPs - to ensure that her ID is not being shared around. One user ID, one person; it's as simple as that.

This thread will remain open. We do not close threads on these boards lightly, and so far there is no reason to close this one. It is relevant to the purpose of the boards and of the folder, and for the most part postings have been polite. We would like to point out that, should any member flame anyone else, that member will be warned. A second offence will result in posting privileges being withdrawn - no matter who it is.

We now return you to your previous discussion.

Posted On behalf of the Boards Administrators

I do have one question regarding this:

Katrinalee wrote:
I'm just a little bit confused. Does this mean that going forward, entrants will no longer have access to their own scoresheets? Or does it simply mean that the actual scoresheet to be used for judging will not be shown to entrants prior to the contest?

Thanks for any clarification.

Lynn

Lynn, I take that to mean that although contestants will be told their numerical scores, they will never - either before or after the contest - be told what questions the scoresheet contained.

Mere

So...technically the scorecard could be asking the judges to rate me on how many adverbs I've used or how many sentences it took before I included a revelation moment or whether or not I used the correct terms of endearment between Lois and Clark?

Actually, I have to say that that was one aspect of the Merriweathers that I did much appreciate - that the criteria listed on the sample scorecard seemed a good list of elements on which to be judged. And I had looked forward to seeing how I did on those particular elements. I considered it part of the feedback.

Perhaps it is just a matter of posting a sample scorecard before each specific category contest? I know that's probably a lot of work for M-Comm, but perhaps it's a matter of developing two or three templates that just require slight modification each time. That would also help entrants interpret scores correctly.

Otherwise, if we don't know what we are being judged on, how can we value such a judgement?

Lynn

Hazel, such venom while spouting half-truths.

I never submitted any stories to contests under "Ann Nonymous." I posted one or two on this board with that moniker because I knew the stories wouldn't be read if people knew who the author was. Seemed like a shame to spend 6 months on a story to have nobody read it. Looks like it worked. I also freely admit to my identity - I'm not all that anonymous at all.

Your motivations, though...
So, because WAFFs "aren't your thing," you need a new identity? Doesn't make much sense.

What they said is that their gatekepper strips the stories of identifiers - headers, names, attributions, then sends them to the judges to be judged anonymously. So, see, if you connect the dots, an anonymous submission shouldn't be needed since the judges wouldn't know who submitted the story in the first place. Why submit anonymously, then? And why submit one story under a pseudonym and one under your real name? Call me suspicious, but I don't see the point...unless you had other motives.

I think, in the name of fairness, that it may be time for a little full disclosure from the Merriweather Committee. I know I've requested this from the KComm, so it only seems fair to request it from the MComm as well: how about a full disclosure of stories submitted and scores received? I bet that would clear this whole thing right up. A girl can dream.

AnnN.

I don't doubt Hazel's motives were exactly what she said they were. However, I would like to say that I think if someone *had* wanted to submit anonymously as a test, it would be perfectly rational. Many of us are concerned that authorship will not be totally anonymous to the judges, and that the judges will not be totally impartial where authors from certain camps are concerned -- as others have pointed out, we had a fairly bitter split not too long ago. I know for a fact that several people refuse to trust the Kerth committee, which is certainly their decision to make, and we have a few people here and there who just can't stand each other. In that context, I can see where someone might want to do a little comparison & contrast, to see if a story sent in under a fake name would be treated differently than one sent under one's real name. I'd thought about doing it myself, frankly (I abandoned the idea when I realized I couldn't write anything that short <g> ).

If the M-Com and all the judges are on the up-and-up, and everything is run precisely as advertised, they have little to fear from this sort of test.

It's a shame if suspicion is tarnishing perfectly innocent people, but really, it's very good news that we're willing to risk it at all (even including tests), instead of just writing the whole thing off and running fast in the other direction.

Act in good faith, M-Com, treat people with respect, and be consistent with what you've said you would do -- you will earn people's trust. It just takes some time. However, if you fudge on the judging or lash out at honest questions... then not so much.

Believe it or not, most of us are still hoping for the best.

PJ

I've stayed out of this discussion because I was afraid I'd say something inflamatory. I am not going to say everything I am thinking because it will just cause more problems then it is worth.

First of all, I did submit a story to the Merriweathers, but Katrina Lee never recieved it, so it wasn't judged. Oh well.

I can't believe it, but I agree with Cindy. I think full disclosure is necessary in this case.

However, I would like to go a step further and request that the judges and the Merriweather Committee reveal themselves. If they know who wrote the stories they judged (which they obviously do, if they searched to find out who Allyse Smith is), it is only fair that the authors know who judged their work. I also think it is only fair to give the authors their score sheet, so they can know exactly what their stories were scored on rather than a random number in various categories. The numbers mean nothing without something that gives the numbers meaning and something that shows the author what they did well or what they can improve on.


- Laura

You *knew* that, did you? And just how did you know that, Cindy? When did you crawl inside my head - and inside the head of every other person who reads stories on these boards - to know what stories by what authors we are or aren't going to read?

Cindy, I don't agree with everything that you have posted on this or any other board. You can probably say the same about me. But that hasn't stopped me from reading many of your stories, and enjoying them. There are some that I just love: Bungee Jumping, My Other Secret Identity, Smile, and Forever leap to mind right away. If you care to check, you'll find that I did post a comment for My Other Secret Identity, and that was certainly after I knew who you were.

So am I such a unique individual that I'm one of the only ones in FoLCdom who is capable of reading the work of an author that they don't personally get along with? I doubt that.

And your statement, to me at least, is a classic example of one of the concerns raised with the initial announcement of the Merriweather Awards: that previously "published" stories could be entered. How could we trust a judge to fairly adjudicate a story if he/she recognized it as a story written by someone they disliked?

People came on and pointed out how there are over 2000 stories on the Archive and that there would be no way that a judge could remember every one. Well, that's true enough.

But let's say that I had been a judge in this round. I had read Jenni's, Meredith's, and Paul's story (and Laura U's as well, even though her story never did get judged). I believe I would have recognized all of them, and I can assure that I would have recognized Paul's instantly. I remember it very well. Even with the author's name, title, and any other identifiers stripped from it, I would have known it was Paul's story.

And now say that I bore a personal grudge against Paul. People claimed that even if a judge did recognize a story and "disliked" the author, that they would still be able to judge fairly. Perhaps. I would like to think that I could have in that situation.

However, Cindy insinuates that a person can't even bear to read a fic by someone we don't get along with, so how can a person be trusted to judge it fairly?

Something to bear in mind...

Kathy

I don't doubt that some people are petty. That's not to say that everyone is, but some people are whether they like to admit it or not. It's just a fact of life. So let's assume that you have some petty person out there who doesn't read certain stories when they see the author, and let's say for argument's sake that this person became a judge in this contest. If they really are that petty, then they wouldn't have read the story by the person they dislike.

If anything, the argument by Kathy is almost an endorement for getting closeminded people as judges. They'd probably be so closeminded that the amount of fic they have read has been rather limited and they are more likely to not recognize a story when they read it. I would daresay that it would also make them more likely to be impartial and pleasantly surprised. Food for thought.

AnnN.

LOL, Cindy. But as I recall, most everybody knew that Ann Nonymous equaled Cindy Leuch right from the get go. Something about IP nos I think. You know what FoLCs are like - present them with a mysterious new author and they'll try and solve the puzzle of who it is.

Yes, as I recall, your story was both read and well-received. Sometimes by people who knew who you were. So, it turned out to be something of a moot experiment really.

Could it possibly be that this notion that certain authors who post here will have their story ignored just because they might have had disagreements in the past with some of the people who hang out here is nothing more than a myth? Existing only in the minds of those who have a keen desire to believe themselves to be discriminated against?

Count me in this group. Oh, you can take out that probably though. I've always thought you were a very talented author, Cindy, and I've greatly enjoyed many of your stories over the years. And good stories and talented authors will always be welcome on this board - no matter what their name.

LabRat

Think I'm not getting something about the scoresheets.

It struck me, from the judges' comments, that the evaluation criteria were pretty clear. Is it that the comments are listed separately from the score chart? But even if that's the case, wouldn't the comments be in the same sequence as the scorechart? So if the first comment addresses writing style, let's say, then that's what cat I is?

It can't be that simple though ...

c

A single comment on hypocrisy is "such venom"?

For crying out loud, Cindy, take your own advice and have some deep breaths, okay? There's little difference between submitting a story to a contest or a message boards. I remained "anonymous" for the duration of a single cycle of the Merriweathers and identified myself the moment it was over for me, which was when I had both scorecards in hand. And, as disappointing as you apparently find it, you are not hated as an author. I may not care for your attitudes or remarks as a person, but that didn't stop me from nominating you in several categories for the Kerths this year -- or, after I'd read your first post to this thread, actually voting for you as well.

And even after reading your reply this morning, Cindy, I still don't regret it.

Hazel

Until the judges and the members of the M-Comm are willing to step forward and reveal their names, it seems a supreme exercise in hypocrisy for them to demand full disclosure on the parts of the writers. From the get go M-Comm has been very vocal about their need for the "protection" of anonymity. Writers deserve that exact same protection.

Like Pam contemplated and Hazel actually did, I, too, had wanted to submit my story under a psuedonym. Despite the assurance that my name would be removed from my entry before given to the judges, I wanted that extra level of security to make sure that I indeed was truly anonymous. If I had known the names of the judges in advance and could have been assured that they carried no prior biases against me, I might not have felt such a need. True, I suppose I could have had faith that the judges would put aside any personal feelings. But as Cindy - aka Ann N - has pointed out, some people are petty, and how can I be sure that those aren't the same people behind the magic judging curtain? Call me paranoid. I don't mind when it comes to submitting something as close to me as my own writing, something I've put a lot of time and energy into and have strong feelings about.

I think that's the bed that M-Comm has made - if they expect blind trust on the part of the entrants on the word of an unknown group of people, they surely cannot be surprised or outraged when writers are a bit wary and take whatever precautions they feel are necessary. Trust must be earned before it can flow in both directions.

Lynn

No, I don't really care to know who the Merriweather Committee is. I like the anonymity of the judges and their comments were very helpful to me.
Artemis