Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related MERRIWEATHER AWARDS

If we're going to ask for names of Merriweather judges to be revealed, then we need to have the names of Kerth judges revealed, don't we? But since the point of Kerth voting is that the judges (i.e. the voters, not the K-Comm) remain anonymous, I don't see why people are upset about Merriweather judges remaining anonymous.

On the other hand, I also don't see why M-Comm is upset by the use of pseudonyms by authors. In the fiction contests I've entered, I don't recall that I was required to use my real name--only to sign a statement that the submission was my own original work.

I'm also troubled by the lack of two items that are standard in RWA chapter contests. I've always received a copy of the scoresheet with all the scoring questions and my scores for each question listed by judge (identified only by number, such as J31). I don't understand the rationale for not including that information, which is extremely useful for the contestant.

I've also always received a spreadsheet which contains all the total scores for each of the entrants (identified only by entry number, such as C17), arranged in descending order by score. I understand what the M-Comm said about that, and a fun-and-games fanfic contest is certainly different than a contest for aspiring professionals who are competing for a chance to be read by an acquiring editor. Since knowing your placement in the group could be potentially hurtful, I can see that information being withheld from a contest like this. However, I don't see any reason not to tell how many submissions there were. If there aren't enough submissions to make a contest of it, set a minimum number and extend the entry date (which I've seen done in several contests) until enough submissions are received. But don't withhold reasonable information.

May I interject a reminder that this entire contest was supposed to be in the spirit of fun and no one was compensated for their time and effort. I have no connection with either the Kerth or Merriweather awards except for being a part of this internet community. I am weary of the loss of perspective by so many.

LaurieD

Laurie's right, and it's a pity that a potential asset to FoLCdom as a whole has been so... tarnished? I don't know what to call it.

I don't think I'll be visiting this folder again, so I'll just sum up a few points:

• While M-Comm hasn't explicitly said so, there's been an implication on this thread that it was underhanded to submit a brand-new story to the Merriweathers, rather than an old one. This baffles me utterly. I wrote a new story for this contest because I wanted to take part, not because I wanted to trap or trick anyone.
• Many suggestions have been made as to motive in choosing a different pseudonym than my normal pen-name. No matter what others might have assumed, including M-Comm, I had no other motive than impulse. It was a new story, so why not submit it under a new name? As I stated before, I submitted a second story under my regular pseudonym of Hazel for the explicit purpose of showing I was not suspicious of M-Comm.
• There have been references to hate-mail directed at Katrina, M-Comm, the judges, or all three. I have had no part in that and I sincerely hope that I haven't inspired any.
• I'm not sure this needs to be emphasized, but just in case: I have NO resentment whatsoever for the judges -- neither for their scores of my fics nor their scores for other stories. I would have enjoyed the opportunity to discuss and clarify things with them, even on an anonymous basis, but it's clear that's not going to happen.
• The only time I ever suggested "outing" the judges was before the Merriweathers began, and then it was a suggestion to reveal the entire pool of judges, not just the four specific ones who would be judging a particular cycle of entries. I agree that it's best to leave those specifics alone.
• Most importantly, I don't want to become a focal point that might damage the Merriweathers further. I do think M-Comm badly needs to get its act together, but the premise of the Merriweathers itself is a wonderful one that I don't think should be lost.

I'll be happy to discuss this privately with anyone who wants to, but I thinks that's enough in a public forum from me.

Hazel

I'm not sure I see the connection between the two, Sheila. For me, they are two quite distinctly different processes, which really can't be compared in this way.

With the Kerths, even though the individual names of each and every voter and who they voted for aren't given, generally speaking we all know who's voting in the Kerths. Readers. FoLCs. And we all know precisely what their qualifications and reasons for voting are. They vote for the stories they believe were well written to a higher than average standard and which they enjoyed most in a given year.

By contrast, the Merriweather judges are setting themselves up as 'experts' in the field of writing, who are therefore able and have the qualifications to judge another's writing skills. But we know nothing of who they are, their writing/judging backgrounds or their qualifications for being judges.

If we know nothing of the judges, how can authors tell what those qualifications are based on? We know nothing either about the criteria on which these judges were chosen by the Merriweather committee. I don't recall ever seeing a post on either mbs asking for candidates to apply to be judges, stating why they believed they were qualified. The process seems to have been entirely private and limited to certain candidates, hand-picked by the committee alone.

Which is fine, of course. No quibble there. The Merriweather committee are perfectly entitled to set up the awards exactly as they wish. And choose the judges they wish as well.

But realistically, having chosen that method, I don't think anyone should be surprised that what I would consider quite reasonable and logical questions are being asked because of the set up chosen.

It doesn't seem surprising to me that authors are asking who are the judges and what makes them qualified to judge. At the very least, it might be a good thing to set out the judges background and qualifications that have won them a place on the judging panel. That might offset some of those questions. Although, realistically, I can't see how that could be done. We don't have that large a fandom here and it would be fairly easy, I'd suspect, to tell who was who even if names weren't given.

But the fact that logistically there may be problems answering those questions, doesn't mean that people will stop wondering. Or asking. It's not a question of being upset - I don't think I've seen anyone say they were upset. It's just a matter of being human. Who wouldn't wonder who the person behind the mask is? Seems a perfectly natural thing to do to me.

Perhaps the main factor that wasn't considered by the Merriweather committee here is that most of the people the awards are aimed at won't be familiar with the romance novel judging process. The Merriweather Committee, it seems, are collectively steeped in that world. Perhaps the judges are too. But lots of us aren't. We have no experience of that system. So perhaps it's less than surprising that we don't understand it. Or that we'd have questions and concerns about how it works, as applied to FoLCdom and fanfic - two elements which the system wasn't designed for, as I understand it. And whereas there will undoubtedly be plenty of common factors between the two worlds, it's a given that there will be plenty of differences too that will make the transition awkward at best.

Having said all that <g>, I think, regarding the question of anonimity, it's been the committee, the organisers behind the awards, that some have been suggesting should be transparent. Not the judges themselves. Even if there's good reason for the judges to stay anonymous - and I have little opinion on that one way or the other myself - there seems little reason for the committee to be.

I've heard that the given reason is that they didn't want to polarise the awards by revealing who they were - because no matter who they were they might have enemies on either side of the fandom. If this was the reason, it seems to me to have backfired pretty badly and ended up producing just the effect they intended to avoid.

It also speaks to distrusting FoLCs to be unbiased about the awards and not relate to them based on their possible prejudices of who is organising them.

I make the statement above, not as a criticism, but simply to point out that you can't have it both ways. If the committee didn't have trust in FoLCs to embrace the awards without bias, can they really be surprised that there was a lack of blind trust in the committee's impartiality in return?

Perhaps now, transparency might be the only way to salvage the distrust that's arisen as a result. It certainly couldn't make things any worse imo. And couldn't hurt. Perhaps it might be a good gesture towards restoring trust in the awards, as the reasons for it would appear now to be moot. Assuming, of course, that I've understood the reasons correctly.

And beyond all of that, as I've said previously, given the history of conflict in this fandom, blind trust does not come easy to most FoLCs. It's perfectly human, as I say, to ask the questions that have been asked, but it's even more normal in this fandom, unfortunately. Trust was something that was lost years ago and that's a hard thing to return to. Which is really why it's a good thing for anyone organising anything to be as upfront and transparent as they can possibly be right from the getgo. It solves a lot of this kind of debate right from the start. It may be awkward and perhaps it's not the route you'd like to take - but unfortunately it's just a part and parcel of FoLCdom that you'd be wise to take account of before embarking on your project. If you don't take that into account...well, I think we've seen where it leads.

All of which is a rather long way around to say that I, for one, wasn't in the least bit suprised to see these questions being asked, didn't find them in any way unusual, unreasonable or abnormal in the circumstances, and my only surprise is that others found it...surprising. <G>

LabRat