Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related MERRIWEATHER AWARDS

ANNOUNCING THE MERRIWEATHER WINNERS!

The Merriweather Committee and I are proud to annouce the winners of the Vignette category:

First Place: One and One Make Two, by Jenni Debbage
Second Place: All Sewn Up, by Meredith Knight
Third Place: The Envelope, by Paul-Gabriel Wiener
Honorable Mention: Sunrise, Sunset, by Allyse Smith

To everyone who participated, we say wish to say "thank you." The judges had a great time reading such wonderful fanfic and admitted it was hard to choose the best one.

If you sent in a story and want to know your score, along with comments by the judges, please feel free to e-mail me. I will provide this information only to the entrants. Submitters are free to share their scores and comments with their friends and post them to this board, if they so choose.

Again, thank you to everyone for terrific submissions and I'll see you in late April when we announce our next category!

Katrina
katrinavannote@yahoo.com

Wow! I turned on my computer and found this. Congratulations to the winners! Especially my friend and long-time beta reader, Jenni Debbage. See? I *told* you that it couldn't hurt to try it! Hm. Never seen Sunrise, Sunset--anybody know where I can find it?

Laura

I don't know if I have read any of those!

Congrats, all And thanks for your hard work, o anonymous judges

PJ
(on cold meds)

Congratulations!! Way to go Jenni, Mere, Paul and Allyse!

Know what would be really great? Perhaps the winners could either post links to where we can all find their stories or post the stories themselves. I certainly would love to read them.

Also, to the rest of those who submitted, it would be fun to see your entries as well. Perhaps we could have a new thread set up for everyone to post submissions?

Good job, you guys!!

Lynn

Congratulations indeed!

I've read the first three stories listed, and love each and every one of them. Like Laura, I haven't seen "Sunrise, Sunset", and would also like to know if it is posted somewhere...

Kathy

Congratulations to the winners!!

See ya,
AnnaBtG.

Congratulations, Jenni, Paul and Allyse! I'm hoping to read your stories soon. Are you planning to post yours, Jenni and Allyse, or can they be found online somewhere? For those who don't know, my story All Sewn Up was written some years ago as a challenge fic and is on the Archive.

Thanks to the Merriweather committee and judges, whoever you are - you must be very proud of this first landmark step.

Would it be very inquisitive to ask how many stories were submitted for the first contest?

Thanks again,
Mere

Congratulations to all the winners!

As Mere says, her story - plus Paul's - can be read at the Archive.

And soon, the Archive will have shiny new icons beside the winning stories. Thanks for forwarding those along, Katrina.

LabRat

Jenni's is on the Archive too. I think where people might be confused is that the title underwent a slight change, and is now
Sure as One and One is Two .

Kathy

Thanks, Kathy! /me grumbles as she's just finished sorting out the icons for forwarding to the Archive and thought she was done...

LabRat

Hi,

I just want to say that I am totally stunned... and, judges, I'd like to thank you so much for awarding me first place.

KathyM, I didn't even realise I'd changed the title slightly. So thank you for posting the link -- that was very kind of you.

Oh, and LabRat, I'm sorry for confusing you. As you'll see, I confused myself.

Congratulations to the other winners.

Yours Jenni

Congrats everyone. I too haven't been able to find Sunrise, Sunset or stories by Allyse Smith.

Congratualtions, Jenni, Meredith, Paul and Allyse!
Also nice to see the archive adding that shiny new icon beside these fics.

c

Just curious here, but I noticed some color-block icons on the Merriweather webpage that have "First Place" etc. written on them. Are *those* the Merriweather Icons?

Laura

You shouldn't be stunned, Jenni, you very much deserved it

Congratulations to you and to all the Merriweather winners!

Jenni:

I agree, you are as talented as any fiction author I have ever read, fanfic of pro! This story of Clark's loving vigil over little Clara is truly a gem!

Tag

I wrote: I received this response in email.

Of course, the disappointment of those who come last is the self-same reasoning the Kerth Committee used in deciding not to release full voting figures for the Kerths.

But I wasn't suggesting a list of scores be released, only the number of entrants, so I'm a little disappointed with the response. This gets to the nub of it: That's exactly why I want to know!

Anyway, it gives me another reason to appreciate hearing about other contestants. Keep posting those stories, people!

Mere

It has come to the attention of the Merriweather Committee that “Sunrise, Sunset” was incorrectly awarded the Honorable Mention award. This was a reporting error, not a scoring error. We would have posted the retraction sooner but the error was buried on page 53 between the obits and the auction notices. We are red-faced over the mistake but will take our lumps like adults. We admit that we should have caught this before Katrina released the list of winners and will be a lot more careful in the future.

We apologize for the confusion. The correct winner of the Honorable Mention is Laura Davies!

We thank you for your patience as we go through our growing pains. We have considered some of the suggestions forwarded to Katrina and will be implementing some changes before the next category is announced.

Speaking of categories: we are currently in the process of deciding what should be offered next. We’re sure many of you have favorite categories that you would like see offered immediately if not sooner. The Merriweather Committee is open to suggestions regarding any category you would like to enter. Perhaps someone would be willing to start a thread on this board for Merriweather category suggestions.

We admit our goof and again, congratulations to Laura on her Honorable Mention award!

The Merriweather Committee

Since these awards are something new and are still in the throes of growing pains, I can see how accidents might happen.

Can I offer a small suggestion? Since there really is no tangible award - no money being given as prizes, no award ceremony, no big statuettes - perhaps in the case of such an error instead of retracting an award maybe the original winner could keep it and a secondary one given to the rightful winner? Just kind of avoids that mental image of the trophy being wrenched out of someone's hands to be handed over to another.

And too, the original erroneous winner still gets something nice to compensate for the disappointment.

Lynn

PS - I did have one more question. I'm sure that this is the case although it is not posted anywhere on the Merriweather website that I could find, but judges are ineligible to enter, aren't they? Probably a stupid question, but just wanted to make sure.

What's the name of Laura's story so we can read it?

Artemis

Say WHAT? Sounds like this was an honest mistake. As Labrat pointed out, these are new awards and sometimes mistakes just happen.

Sorry, Laura, for the confusion. I didn't mean it that way at all. Simply that since this is an "Honorable Mention" award it just doesn't seem like it would hurt anyone if Alyssa was allowed to keep hers as a consolation for the error and another one was awarded to your story. So in this one instance, there would be two "Honorable Mention" awards, both equal in value and worth. As one of the other writers in the contest, I certainly wouldn't begrudge it if Alyssa was allowed to keep that distinction despite that fact that my story had a higher point value, as did Hazel's story.

Sorry, too, I forgot to say Congratulations. Your story is certainly worthy of a Merriweather! Good Job.

Lynn

Really? /me raises an eyebrow. Usually, in these kinds of contests, an Honorable Mention equals fourth place. As you mentioned, Allyce's AKA Hazel's story wasn't in fourth. <shrug> I'm sorry, but I just don't see the problem. I wouldn't mind too much if it turned out that mine was a mistake. Stuff happens.

Laura

No problem, Laura. Clearly it means a lot to you. I just was trying to think of a way to spare Allyse's (aka Hazel's) feelings. No biggie. I'm sure she understands. Like you said, sometimes s**t happens. *shrug*.

Lynn

Actually, I thought since Hazel said earlier that she wasn't sure she'd really earned it that it wouldn't. It's a matter of integrity. If I didn't really earn something like that, then by all means give it to the person who did. <g> It's why if I get incorrect change at a store I take it back. Or if the ATM gave me more money than I asked for, I'd return it. I'd feel awful about keeping something that wasn't mine. Hazel is an honest, decent person, so it never occurred to me that she'd feel differently.

IMHO, if one keeps something that one knows isn't theirs, it's stealing. Just MHO. I know that *I'd* never keep it if it wasn't mine...

Laura

I want to make one thing very clear. The suggestion that Allyse be allowed to keep her wrongly-awarded Honorable Mention as a show of good faith on the part of the M-Comm and as an apology for their error was 100% my idea. Hazel has had no input on this at all. To suggest that she is wanting to keep something that technically isn't hers is completely erroneous.

Lynn

The problem with that analogy is that for you to keep the money means that someone else had to lose it. In this case no one's arguing that Hazel should keep the award and that you shouldn't receive one. Two can exist without diminishing the other.

I can't speak for Hazel, but I'd be rather upset to win something and later have it taken away. (In fact, many of us live in fear of exactly that happening; it's called "Impostor Syndrome" <g>) When that happened in the Olympics back in... 2002?... there was an international uproar. Not to compare a small fanwriting contest to the Olympics , but taking away someone's award just seems to create hurt feelings that could very easily be avoided. They aren't a limited commodity, and no one is "stealing" anything.

Again, Hazel may feel differently and all this may be moot. But there are my 2 cents.

Kaylle

First of all, I have just realized I have been remiss. Congrats to Jenni and Mere and Paul! And congratulations on your award, Laura, as well, although I suggest you delay your excitement until you actually have your scores in hand and see that you've really won. I am less than impressed with M-Comm's batting average.

Lynn and Kaylle, while I appreciate your desire to defend my feelings, I assure you that I'm not hurt or disappointed by this. It sometimes pays to find out if a defense is needed before defending.

I will say, however, that if you're really interested in pursuing a writing career, Laura, you might want to avoid ascribing unsavory motives to others. It tends to leave a bad taste in the reader's mouth.

No, I am not offended at losing something that wasn't mine in the first place. I am, however, close to disgusted at M-Comm's behavior.

The question regarding the score for "Sunrise, Sunset" would not have arisen if I hadn't brought it up myself. Five or six hours before posting the story on both mbs, I e-mailed Katrina, explained that "Allyse" was really Hazel, and mentioned the discrepancy in the scores -- that Allyse's score was lower than my other fic, and that both were lower than Lynn's. (I'd added up wrong, as some of you pointed out, but the point -- that Allyse's score was lower than two others -- was still valid.) I also gave some very courteous suggestions for improvements of the rather jerky Merriweather process for the future.

That was early Thursday morning my time -- late Wednesday night in the States. Since then, Katrina has not bothered to acknowledge my e-mail in any way. I had to visit the boards this morning to discover that I was no longer the winner of the Honorable Mention, and that it had been given to someone else.

"It has come to the attention of the Merriweather Committee"? Why not say, "Hazel has told us"? Because that would require that you acknowledge my existence?

Why should I mind losing the honorable mention when it wasn't mine? What I *do* mind is the appalling lack of courtesy here and the absence of all integrity. If Katrina discovered an error of this magnitude, does she and M-Comm really think that a blithe joke about the error being "buried on page 53 between the obits and the auction notices" is sufficient? I'm not troubled by the loss of the award, but another person in this position might be. Why didn't M-Comm apologize to the person that was wronged by their own lack of professionalism?

So far, the M-Comm has announced winners without bothering to update their own website, sent out scorecards without troubling to tell authors that the rules for scoring had changed, failed to keep up a reasonable correspondence with the entrants, and announced a new winner, after the original winner had to tell them of their error, without having the decency to inform the former winner in private beforehand. Or at all, really. As far as M-Comm is concerned, I don't actually know about it, do I?

Ordinarily, I would never air such a grievance in public. But since Katrina and M-Comm apparently don't believe in private correspondence, I don't seem to have much choice. "Adults" tend to act with courtesy. I have failed to see any.

The Merriweather page no longer includes the snide reference to the Kerths, but it does still state this: Perhaps M-Comm should consult a dictionary for future reference.

Hazel

Did I? Hm. And I thought I said that it never occurred to me that you'd be offended, Hazel. Nice. Putting words in my mouth and attributing motives to me that don't exist. Hell yes, I'm cranky and more than a little bitchy today. You would be too if your legs were tightly bandaged, causing you pain, and completely back to the swollen state they were in three months ago when you STARTED treatment.

I'm not part of MComm. (Since Lynn has all but accused me of conspiracy yet AGAIN to win in this matter, I feel it necessary to reiterate this yet again.) But I don't understand why so many have taken offense to their mission statement. It cracked me up when I first saw it because it's almost a direct quote from Superman's first interview with Lois. (I believe that's in Strange Visitor, but my tapes are dying, so I can't be sure if that's right.) Frankly, I'm shocked that y'all don't recognize it. I did, and I haven't watched first season in almost a year. (I prefer late second, third, and fourth seasons.)

I'm beginning to remember why I stopped hanging here. Even y'all's "congratulations" tend to leave a bad taste in my mouth. And yes, I've gotten my scores. My overall score was 250. And yes, I also refuse to post my feedback. I prefer to keep that to myself.

Laura

As to the M-Comm's mission statement, I would imagine many - if not all - of us recognize the reference to the SV interview. And of course, it's not unique to L&C. The phrase "truth, justice, and the American way" was used in the George Reeves series, and probably in the comics before that.

M-Comm may be after truth and justice, and feel that exposing their error is indeed the true and just thing to do. I don't dispute that, but I have issues with the way they did it.

Having read Hazel's post, I was very dismayed at the actions of M-Comm in this matter. It's disturbing to think that they would have released award information without making absolutely sure of their totals, but as has been pointed out, this is a new venture and there are kinks to work out.

But to me, at least, it is inexcusable that M-Comm chose to make a public announcement without notifying Hazel first, especially since they might never have realized the error if she hadn't brought it to their attention. Barring that, they could have sent an email to her immediately afterward, but apparently that did not happen either.

I certainly appreciate that these are all volunteers giving up their time and effort. Perhaps this project turned out to be bigger than they anticipated, or perhaps RL came crashing down unexpectedly. But the fact of the matter remains that unless there have been developments since Hazel posted, she still has not been informed. This may have nothing to do with truth and justice, but certainly has something to do with good manners and respect for others.

Kathy

You're right, Kathy. It was in the comics and the introduction to the cartoons as well. <g> And having caught some of the old Adventures of Superman on TV Land at 3am, it's there, too....

Laura

[Edit: at least I'm *pretty* sure it was in the comics. IIRC, it came into the mythos in the thirties radio program.]

Dear Hazel,

We have read your most recent post and quite frankly, we are sick to death of your whining. Since you have fired the first volley, and in public, we are going to take this opportunity to defend ourselves in public as well.

You did not bring this matter to the attention of the Merriweather Committee. The Committee was suspicious of the source of the story and had been checking to make sure it was posted somewhere and not someone else's work submitted just to test us. We spent three days trying to track down your story on archives, googling, Fanfic.net and other sources then we wouldn't have wasted so much time unnecessarily. If you had been upfront with us when you submitted the story, i.e., had told us that it was your story under a different name, then this error would have been corrected a lot sooner. You even submitted it under a new e-mail address. Several members of the M-Comm wasted three days because you refused to come forward and admit your charade.

You admitted in an e-mail to Katrina that submitted this under a pseudonym:

... but, um, I'm actually Hazel and I wanted to have both scorecards for comparison before I posted.

Why did you feel the need to have both scorecards before you posted? To test us? So see if we were legit? Why was it so important to you that you prove something about us? Since you pulled this stunt, your wounded, betrayed behavior has no sympathy with us. If you want to discredit us, don't bother entering a story. Just badmouth us on the boards.

Katrina is doing the very best she can. We got a LOT more entries than we anticipated and yes, she got overwhelmed. We now have a second gatekeeper in place and we are looking to add a third. Sometimes our e-mails to her go go unanswered for a day or so. However, I am adult enough to take into consideration that Katrina is a full-time parent to three children, a full-time wife, a full-time student, and is also having to volunteer several hours of time towards her degree. She is doing the best she can.

The issue of "the rules for scoring had changed" is laughable. The website clearly states that they are sample score sheets. They were never intended to be the original, actual scoresheets. It was simply a way for the entrants to get some idea of what the Merriweather Committee was looking for in any particular category.

From now on, we will state what category is next and what the total score of the category will be. Being a new competition, this is one of those areas where we didn't have the foresight to consider this. It was never a deliberate ploy to keep entrants in the dark and misinformed. It was just something that never occurred to us.

One aspect hasn't changed: No entrant will be allowed access to the scoresheet. If you have issues with that, don't enter the competition.

Finally, you harp on us for not being "adult." Does your definition of "adult" give YOU the right to make comments such as:

"If you're really interested in pursuing a writing career, Laura, you might want to avoid ascribing unsavory motives to others. It tends to leave a bad taste in the reader's mouth."

Or

"'Adults'" tend to act with courtesy. I have failed to see any."

Do you consider your post to be those of an adult? As the chairman of the Merriweather Committee, I fail to see it.

Hazel, you were free to send a message to M-Comm any time you wanted. Katrina is merely our mouthpiece. Rather than have dozens of similar e-mails from the Committee, we funnel all comments through her. She obviously sends e-mail to us and receives e-mail from us so it stands to reason that any thinking adult could have sent mail to us via Katrina. So quit whining in public and pursue this argument through e-mails to us like an adult.

To everyone else:

Yes, we are having growing pains. Yes, we are learning, Yes, we are making mistakes. Yes, we know we made a big one. ALL the members of the M-Comm missed this mistake and we are very unhappy that we did. We also should have notified Hazel a/k/a "Allyse" via e-mail. Since she had publicly posted messages about her scores, we presumed that she and all her friends knew she could not have won HM with her score.

HOWEVER-- WE HAVE APOLOGIZED. WE WILL NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES AGAIN.

Yes, we stumbled. Yes, we made a colossal mistake--twice. Yes, we admit that we screwed up. But for the love of Mike, let it go. We have learned from it and it won't happen again.

We have done our best to rise above all the petty and hateful comments that have been hurled our way. We have done our best to ignore a lot of the negative e-mails that Katrina has forwarded to us regarding our integrity (your opinion of our lack of it--when the competition was announced and now this). We've done our best to go forward and create a contest that we think people will enjoy entering. However, this thread has degenerated to the point that we felt we had to speak up in our own defense.

Right now, I'm asking Anne Ciotola to close this thread. If you have a problem with these comments, send to the M-Comm in care of Katrina.

Chairman, Merriweather Committee

Before I do anything, I'd like to know first, just how many people are using this ID if the person who made this post is not her.

There is a rule about sharing IDs here.
Everyone is expected to read the FAQs and follow the rules of this forum. While the above is listed for the Nfic forum but it should be assumed this goes for *all* IDs.

I'm locking the KatrinaLee ID until I get an email stating that the ID will no longer be shared and at that point the password will get changed before the ID is unlocked. If other M-Comm members would like to post, please use your own ID or create a new one for you personally to use.

Thank you for your co-operation.

Whining? *Whining*?! You can't be serious. Sure, she may whined some, but are you really "sick to death" of it? How long has she been whining, exactly?

Does this whole excuse sound ludicrous to anyone else? Let me see if I can get this straight, my apologies if I get it wrong.

You went ahead and announced winners of the contest when you were suspicious that one of the entrants (who was at the time a winner as well) was a plagiarist?!

Seems to me, this is either a little smoke to hide true intentions, or you all are a little more disorganized than it appears.

You say you wasted time trying to deduce the true intent of the submission in question... if such a thing was going on, I wonder why the winners were posted before you resolved the issue.

Well, all things considered, can you blame her if that was her intent? I don't.

Furthermore, *you* all are anonymous. Why can't Hazel be if she wishes? I haven't read the rules, so I'm not sure if Hazel was breaking any, but that seems like a double standard.

I also had another question... I thought the judging was supposed to be done anonymously. So why were you trying to find out whose story it was?

Something doesn't add up, and I'm sure it's not just the number of "Katrina's" there are.

Sara

Wow. Just got back from a week AFK to find out I'd won 3rd place, see all this contravercy, and realize that I hadn't won 3rd place, after all.

I'm not going to touch on this latest batch of posts, but I do think it worth mentioning that if Laura's score was, indeed, 250, then she has not won "Honorable Mention." As I'll shortly be posting in the Merriweather scores thread, my story, "The Envelope," recieved a total score of 245, beating Hazel's score by a single point. Laura's 250 clearly beats that for a 3rd place win. So, congrats to Laura, and of course to Jenni and Mere!

Thanks to the Merriweather Committee for an interesting experience, and especially to the judges for their time, effort, and comments.

Paul

Yeah, this is the bit that really gets to me. The judges are anonymous and we're supposed to trust them without question. You yourself, the Chairman, are anonymous. But submitting a story under a pseudonym is a "charade" that wastes Mcomm's time? You can't have it both ways-- either we're all anonymous, or we're not.

As for pursuing problems in private, it sounded like Hazel had attempted to contact you that way and never received a reply. You can't be upset with her for trying a different avenue of communication.

I appreciate that you're all volunteers. I know way too well how much work it is trying to go to school and deal with family issues. I know you're still feeling this out and you're going to make mistakes. But the holier-than-thou attitude doesn't lend itself well to sympathy. And it's hard to empathize with a person/people who hide behind a "mouthpiece."

Kaylle

Deep breaths, people, deep breaths.

Congratulations to everyone who won awards. I entered a story into the contest as well (which received a score of 245), and after a few days of waffling, sent away for the scores and comments. Some things that stood out to me:
- Each of the judges appears to have their own voice and opinion. If you read the comments posted in the scores thread, it's evident that what is good to one judge may be flawed to another. My own score sheet reflects this as well. I tend to think that this is a good thing - it reflects a lack of bias in what is trying to be achieved with these stories. That's just the way I see it. Sue me.
- Every person who submitted a story could receive a score sheet if requested. Obviously people have been comparing their scores and talking to each other. If the Merriweather Committee had some sort of agenda, why would they make everything public and allow the comparisons that are going on here?
- It's regretable that some mistakes have been made. It's also regretable that some people seem to have gone into this contest bent on wreaking havok. I find it sad that some out there have nothing better to do that try and destroy these awards. Before the first round of judging, many out there were critical of the awards, but some of those critics still submitted stories and, hey, they ended up on the winner board. Again, if the Merriweather Committee had an agenda, would that happen? The attitude that somehow the Merriweather Committee needs to be put in its place smacks of pettiness. If you're confident in your writing, submit a story and let it speak for itself, then proudly show off your scoresheet after it's returned.

If I were the Merriweather Committee, I'd only allow previously posted stories to be submitted. Looks like they're more flexible than I would be.

I'd imagine that stripping names from stories (for judging) would lead to the possibility of having some difficulties putting the two together again. The first run of anything is difficult. Maybe that's what happened? Paul's post makes me wonder if maybe everything needs to be looked at again. Of course, we'll never know what the results are now that our benevolent board moderator has banned the Merriweather Committee spokesperson.

Anne - do you have any evidence that Katarina is sharing her password or is someone else in disguise? Or is she just in trouble for forwarding something without comment? If you DO have evidence of sinister motives, it might be best for everyone if you end the suspense and put the cards on the table.

AnnN.

I'm going to delete my comments at this time, but I may revisit them later.

I've spent some days, and much of last night, mulling over the actions of M-Comm in yanking the award for "Sunrise, Sunset" with no word of explanation as soon as it became clear that "Allyse Smith" was in fact Hazel. The idea that the Honourable Mention was intended all along simply as a fourth-place award, and that a difference of over thirty points in score was somehow overlooked is, frankly, incredible.

I can only conclude that M-Comm is acting in bad faith. Consequently, I've decided that I would prefer my name not to be associated with the awards, and have emailed the committee via the gatekeeper to hand back my award.

Getting up this morning to discover the latest official post from M-Comm is something of a relief, as it has removed any lingering doubt or regret I might have had over my decision.

I have some faint hope that these awards may yet, with time and a serious attitude adjustment on the part of the committee, become something the fandom can be proud of; but they have a very, very long way to go.

Meredith

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

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