Discussion in 'Monthly Short Story Contest' started by ShannonH, Oct 21, 2016.
Double Post, again!
I like the idea of a panel of judges alongside the public vote. Would certainly even this issue out.
I certainly won't be voting for myself. In the case of this contest, had I voted for myself, I'd be in a more favourable position right now, but I would feel that I'd cheapened it. I didn't expect to receive any votes. This is actually the first time I've shared my writing with anyone outside of my immediate family and close friends. To know it is being read is enough. To be receiving votes is an incredible morale boost.
You tease. I'm so excited to find out who wrote what.
I am sorry your feelings are still hurt, honestly I moved on from this like 5 minutes after.
Tenderiser is just diplomatic you shouldn't hold that against anyone. Also, seriously if we were disclude intoxicated writers, we would lose a whole lot including the most seasoned ever hear of Hemingway or Kerouac?
I am actually curious about your writing, can't find a sample of it, you haven't posted any on here, and btw all the links on your blog/website are dead. If you want to help us little guys you should share, open yourself up to a critique. Who knows we as well as you may grow.
BTW wouldn't it be funny if you voted for my piece. That is the beautiful thing about our current system, people vote anonymously, so they may vote for someone that you can't stand. If you take that away less people would participate.
The anonymity is vital. I used to take part in a Photoshop contest on a forum I used to frequent, but everyone would vote for their mates and the people in their cliques. This forum is very different, but I would imagine it would still happen somewhat.
Believe it or not, there was a time when submissions were not anonymous--you just posted them as yourself. Thankfully it hasn't been that way for a long time.
I've no interest in a judging panel for the WF comps. Myself personally, I wouldn't bother going into them anymore. The appeal for me is the unpredictability and the potential for diversity. That it could be the opinion of anyone (who can be bothered).
To base it on a panel of people somebody decided was worthy would wreck the charm of these comps. Why do these people need to be glorified into a panel? Can't they just vote out of good will, without the recognition, like all us other members? Let's just stick with status quo.
I also liked being forced to make ONE choice and to practice the discipline of not voting for myself. It's good for the ego to remind myself, I'm above that.
Discourtesy was mentioned by @Steerpike and I strongly agree. A victory from 2-3 entries would not be so exciting to me. Others took the time to write something so there is competition to begin with. I do find it discourteous that entrants can't spare a vote, to appreciate someone else's effort even if they think their work is the best. I'm sure all those crazy parents at competition events think on a similar level.
"My child is the best!!!! Get your runt off the field!"
And these comps for me is just a form of express critique minus the overhead of giving/taking feedback. Imagine how rude it would be at the end of a critique session, when everyone was asked whose pieces they might have enjoyed most, they all pointed at themselves.
Yes, I'm feeling 'judgey' today... Can I be on this panel?
This I agree. I always smile when I get one vote. It's gold because it wasn't mine.
Just want to say I don't vote for my own work because I don't have any!
What about something like this?
You can limit voting to one submission per device
Respondents are required to choose a 1st, 2nd and 3rd (can't just choose first place)
Weighted responses mean that if someone votes for himself/herself, it gives him/her less of an edge
You can show respondents the results after they vote. Transparency!
I guess people could do more than one vote if they used different devices. I'm still fiddling with it to see what kind of controls are in place.
But I dunno how the software here works or whether this would just be an enormous PITA for the contest administrators. This one took about 45 seconds to make.
(Also, I didn't limit to one vote per device on that survey).
There are too many complicated solutions to a non-existent problem being bandied about. If someone votes for themself, it's their ego that's the problem. And what value a golden gong obtained like that? Based on the number of voters in the current competition, anyone so madly keen to win-at-all-costs only needs a slack handfull of other login names to guarantee a medal.
Naturally, we're all biased towards our own entries, so the voting guidelines should be amended to say "You may vote for one story other than your own." Unenforceable I grant you, but this isn't for the Booker Prize.
I would like to think that is precisely what all the entrants have done.
I didn't vote for my own entry. In fact, using my own selection criteria, I didn't even make the top three.
I agree that it's not a legitimate win if the author's vote clinched it, but I do think it's a problem because it cheated another author out of a win. No, it's not the Booker Prize, but people still spent hours of their lives writing and submitting an entry in the hopes of winning.
There is no simple solution... but I do think it's a problem, and I do wish there was a solution.
Honest question: What is there to lose by making a rule that you can't vote for yourself?
One of the rules here is that you can't plagiarize someone else's work. Does that mean the admins run every single workshop submission and contest entry through Copyscape? (God, I hope not). We just have to trust that most people here genuinely want to become better writers/help other writers, and that they understand that the best way to do this is to use the forum as it's intended.
Like I mentioned earlier, I would vote for myself on the off chance that I thought it was best. Sorry if that makes me a dick.
If the rules explicitly stated that I couldn't vote for myself, then I wouldn't. Period. I'm not THAT kind of dick.
Can it be enforced? Probably not, but it would eliminate the confusion/ambiguity. Some people will be THAT kind of dick. Most won't.
to be honest most people dick enough to vote for themselves are also dick enough to break the rules if they know they can get away with it, so although that rule would be easy to pass it would also be pointless.
It would theoretically be possible to recode the site so that voting is anonymous to the members but not the mods, or to make it so that people actually can't vote for themselves - but in all honesty is this a big enough issue to want the site admin to spend his time rummaging about in the xen foro forums and handcoding the voting software ? Personally I'd say it isn't.
Maybe it's just because I'm new here, but I don't believe that most people here would just flat-out go against the rules. Some, yes, but not most. In this thread alone, several people have said that they weren't clear on whether it was acceptable or not. The fact that they took the time to comment suggests an interest in/respect for how the contests work.
From what I've read, one of the biggest complaints is that a single self-vote can throw the results. If the rule stopped TWO people from voting for themselves, then why not?
Most people probably wouldn't vote for themselves anyway - tbh I don't much care whether people do or not , anyone who does and consequently wins by one vote will know that their victory is tainted.
I like the changes put in place to make the contest better, and I believe it is a valuable function of the forum to provide the contest. I appreciate the open discussion and all of the work that has gone into past contests, modifying the format, and keeping it going.
This is an important ongoing discussion, and perhaps a consensus will never be reached about whether to institute a policy somehow preventing writers from voting for their own submissions. However, if there were such a policy, I believe that all, or nearly all, writers would adhere to the policy without need for some sophisticated software to track this.
In spite of what @big soft moose might believe, those writers who have voted for themselves are not in fact "dicks" or somehow morally "less than." They are likely writers who worked hard on their piece and believed it was the best. Let us have this discussion without a moral uppitty-ness about how shameful or "childish" it is for a writer to vote for their own work.
If the majority favor a policy against self-voting (which it appears they do), I suggest we make that the policy. My prediction would be that 99% of writers would honor the policy. I would.
I voted for myself once, because it wasn't against the rules then. @GingerCoffee included the option in her policy. But if @Tenderiser decided not to allow that anymore, I wouldn't vote for myself again.
If your story is that good, you shouldn't need to vote for yourself to win. Be honest, if your story wins by just one vote, and that one vote was your own, are you really going to be proud of your "win"?
Damn straight, I'd still be proud!
There are other XenForo voting add-ons available. Maybe one of them will have better options for a contest.
If you read my previous post yu'll see that I actually said that the whole thing was a non issue as most people won't vote for themselves, a few might vote for themselves if they honestly believe their work to be best and fewer still might vote for themselves anyway
Voting for yourself if you genuinely and as close to objectively as possible believe your own work to be the best isn't necessarily dickish , however voting for yourself out of a desire to win by one vote definitely is.
End of the day I would rather lose than vote for myself because for me taking part is the important thing - that is the challenge to improve your writing , winning is a nice bonus but not something to get obsessed with.
As regards the rule , i suspect the reason it doesnt exist may be because the mods don't want to make a rule that is totally unenforceable
If I enter I don't vote at all, on moral grounds.
But I'm sure you read all the stories.
Separate names with a comma.