DISCUSSION -- April 2015 300-word Writing Challenge (#17)

[Cascade]

Given Hollands explanation. I think I agree. There is an extent to which a person only giving one vote makes the vote worth three times as much. Not quite but almost.

 

[Cat's Cradle]

Apologies beforehand for my next comments, I am having a difficult day, and though I love the writing challenges, they are not equal to real-world challenges...no hard feelings to anyone, and I would suggest to the moderators that perhaps the vote in question should be voided from my total. I won't comment again on the topic. I'll say to Jo thank you for the kind thought. And perhaps it is best that the vote be voided. Thank you, CC

 

[Cascade]

Apologies beforehand for my next comments, I am having a difficult day, and though I love the writing challenges, they are not equal to real-world challenges...no hard feelings to anyone, and I would suggest to the moderators that perhaps the vote in question should be voided from my total. I won't comment again on the topic. I'll say to Jo thank you for the kind thought. And perhaps it is best that the vote be voided. Thank you, CC

I don't agree cc. It is a valid vote for a great story. Whether the voting needs to be discussed further in no way diminshes that.

 

[holland]

Yeah, I agree, your vote should in no way be voided, it's a great story and you were so close to getting one of my votes too

 

[Phyrebrat]

When things like this come up, it's a perfect opportunity to bring out the Statutory Instruments and amend the Green Book (I'm hoping that reference is understood by more than just TJ ).

There's been a lot of talk about the challenges lately so maybe it's the season for evaluating them. Mention was made in the 75 one that maybe if 3 votes were given in that, it would be germane to increasing numbers, because those people who rarely got votes (and therefore gave up) would possibly get an increase. If that's the case, then it follows that only using 1 of a potential 3 votes could have the opposite effect (perhaps?).

I think it would be good to amend the opening post to 300s with the optional clause thing.

My own feelings on it are that if I had not voted for three, I'd have probably stealth-voted my one vote as to bring attention to it could be a bit of a slap in the face to some. We know Jo's not that kind of person but new members may take it a bit personally.

pH

eta: hit post reply by accident. Still typing

 

[The Judge]

CC, I can guess how this mini-kerfuffle is upsetting you, and I'm sorry for it. But just to make it clear, we don't remove votes without very good reason, and there's certainly no good reason here. So don't worry about it any more.

While it's true that in some cases using only one of one's three votes can give that vote extra "power", there is no obligation on anyone to vote at all, let alone use all three of her votes in the 300 Worder, nor would I be happy at introducing such a rule. NB I'm speaking for myself here, as there are no other Challenge-entering mods around so I've not discussed this with the others, but in the circumstances I wanted to make my feelings known asap.

Personally, even when I've felt one story stood head and shoulders above the others, I've still used my other two votes in the 300, since I'm voting for the three best stories in my estimation, not the single best, so even if they're only second and third, they still get my vote. But if someone genuinely believes that only one story is worth a vote, we should respect that.


I'm not sure if you're still typing, pH, as I've been waiting a while to see the end of the post, but just to confirm the SIs are fine, and no additions yet planned to the Green Book (though surely it's the White Book we should be looking at here!)

 

[Phyrebrat]

You're right, TJ - what a newbie mistake to make; this is certainly a Supreme Court action

pH

 

[chrispenycate]

Well, after hours of finding reasons to eliminate entries (not always very relevant reasons, nor even entirely rational, but how else reduce the mass?) I've reduced my list to:- jastius, Juliana, Moonbat, Phyrebrat, Ursa major, Venusian Broon and Victoria Silverwolf, and voted for three of them - what, it matters which three? All right, Juliana, Phyrebrat and Ursa major - though it could very have been any of the others, and even a few I didn't list here. But I haven't one particular one that I preferred over all the rest.

But that is why Springs' - Jo's vote is absolutely valid. It isn't as if she'd concentrated all her votes on her favourite story, just her voting power - and it's been done often enough in the past (believe me, I have charts).

 

[Juliana]

My votes went to Victoria, Phyrebrat and Glen. Phyre had perhaps my fave line in the whole challenge: "over calico lands and beryl seas."

Shortlist: CC, Jo, Jastius, Remedy, Alc, Perp, Mosaix, VB and TJ.

A big thanks to Chrispy, A.Fare Wells, TitaniumTi, Ashleyne and Jennifer for the votes. And for the mentions, Tywin, Victoria, Glen, Rafellin, CC, JJ, Littlestar, Alc and SB.

Also thanks Ashleyne for the review - loved it!

Edited to add: a vote from Chrispy! Thank you.

 

[Ursa major]

Many thanks for the votes, Remedy and Chrispy.


If we're talking about real world examples -- ones in which the outcome is a smidgen (but only a smidgen) more important than in our challenges -- I am unaware of examples of countries that use a voting system where one can tick more than one option** where the voters are obliged to tick more than one. (This doesn't mean that there aren't examples out there, but I expect they are small in number.) If this is good enough for the selection of a government....


** - I won't say cast more than one vote, because systems such as the Single Transferable Vote (STV) and the Alternative Vote (AV) merely provide a mechanism whereby a single vote can be reallocated (or even partially reused***, as can happen with STV) under certain circumstances.

*** - I'd explain how this is supposed to happen, but that would require too much detail with little relevance to this thread.

 

[johnnyjet]

Thanks for the short listing, willwallace, Jo & Starbeast. And thanks for the votes Victoria, A. Fare Wells & LittleStar! Awesome!

 

[Moonbat]

Another great challenge, fantastic entries all round.
Huge thanks for all the short listings, I would name you all her but I've taken to liking your posts.
Big thanks to Karn, Holland, Cascade and marmalade for the votes

My shortlist, shorter list and votes

cc
juliana
denise tanaka
tywin
cascade
littlestar
remedy
phyrebrat
karn
perp
johnny jet
crystal haven
mosaix
venusian broon
judge

I can see why only placing a single vote might seem to skew the results, but surely placing three equal votes when you feel that they are placed 1st, 2nd and 3rd in your head might skew the results more? We need an STV or AV system that the mods can spend a few days on after the poll closes to work out who has won, either that or we just let the person whose screen name sounds most like Boonmat win. Both seem fair to me

 

[Juliana]

or we just let the person whose screen name sounds most like Boonmat win

I can just see the twitter campaign... #BoonmatFTW #TeamBoonmat

(thanks for the vote, by the way)

 

[Cat's Cradle]

Thank you for the listing Juliana. And thank you for the vote, Moonbat.

I feel badly about the voting-kerfuffle earlier today. Open discussion is always a good thing, and I hope we all move onwards and upwards from here.

either that or we just let the person whose screen name sounds most like Boonmat win.

That doesn't sound half bad to me, MB!

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Sorry, have been tied up today with training, but just to respond. Firstly, I didn't feel it was in any controversial. There have been, as Chrispy says, many examples of people only choosing to vote for one story before. In fact, in the Kraxon window in January - where £100 was up for grabs, so more significant, maybe - several people one voted and I think I managed to hold @alchemist off with one of them (and no, you're not getting £50, Alc ) So, this was no new precedent.

Also, I didn't do it through laziness. I normally vote on the first day but struggled this time. I reread about six of the stories many times, and still didn't feel I could choose between them. Finally after four days of deliberation I decided not to, as was my absolute right under both the rules and voting precedence.

But anyway, some responses:

And perhaps it is best that the vote be voided. Thank you, CC

No, no and no. This happened to me one month and I remembering PMing the mods and asking they remove the vote, so I absolutely understand why you feel this way. They said no, and they were right to (I lost, as it happens, so it made no difference anyway). The vote is valid.

My own feelings on it are that if I had not voted for three, I'd have probably stealth-voted my one vote as to bring attention to it could be a bit of a slap in the face to some. We know Jo's not that kind of person but new members may take it a bit personally.

pH

If it had been something I thought was controversial, I might have stealth voted. I also can't see how it can be seen as a slap in the face. I listed the others I was most musing over.

I've had months where people say 'if I'd had only one vote, this would have got it' - ie that there is one they felt was stronger than the others, or more to their taste, or whatever. The only difference here was I chose not to separate some great entries. If anyone takes that personally, I'm sorry, but, I can't see why. Writing is tough, it's subjective, it's hellishly hard.

But that is why Springs' - Jo's vote is absolutely valid. It isn't as if she'd concentrated all her votes on her favourite story, just her voting power - and it's been done often enough in the past (believe me, I have charts).

I believe you. I think it, perhaps, used to happen more regularly in the past.

Many thanks for the votes, Remedy and Chrispy.


If we're talking about real world examples -- ones in which the outcome is a smidgen (but only a smidgen) more important than in our challenges -- I am unaware of examples of countries that use a voting system where one can tick more than one option** where the voters are obliged to tick more than one. (This doesn't mean that there aren't examples out there, but I expect they are small in number.) If this is good enough for the selection of a government....

We have the tick more than one option voting system here for all but general elections. I absolutely don't have to tick all six boxes. I can tick only one if I want.

Anyway, I'm not that impressed about being called out for it so openly and would have preferred if it could have been raised as a more general point, but now that it has, I felt a small defence of myself was in order. I didn't do it to be mean, to hurt, to single out, to slap anyone in the face. I did it because it was in the rules, has been done many times in the past, and it represented my vote more accurately than choosing between stories I found impossible to separate. If that offends/hurts/irks/upsets anyone, so be it. I'm pretty annoyed myself.

And on that, I'll bow out.

 

[Phyrebrat]

If it had been something I thought was controversial, I might have stealth voted. I also can't see how it can be seen as a slap in the face. I listed the others I was most musing over.

I've had months where people say 'if I'd had only one vote, this would have got it' - ie that there is one they felt was stronger than the others, or more to their taste, or whatever. The only difference here was I chose not to separate some great entries. If anyone takes that personally, I'm sorry, but, I can't see why. Writing is tough, it's subjective, it's hellishly hard.

Of course I would've kept out of this if I'd benefitted but seriously, I don't think you're being called out on it so much as it being an opportunity to clarify the rules for some members.

Certainly saying it could be a slap in the face was careless of me to say and I didn't mean to accuse you of that. Writing is tough, you're right; tough to do, let alone be successful enough to get published (and I'm no fan of people who need to be handled with kid gloves - tough love is more effective as far as I'm concerned).

pH

 

[Hex]

tough love is more effective as far as I'm concerned

Eeek. You're scary.

 

[Ursa major]

I think Phyrebrat is merely pointing out that dancing around an issue doesn't always work. (And he should know....)

​

 

[Starbeast]

Thanks Starbeast and Jo for the kind mentions.

You're very welcome Willwallace. "FREEDOM"

Thanks for the short listing, willwallace, Jo & Starbeast. And thanks for the votes Victoria, A. Fare Wells & LittleStar! Awesome!

You are immensely welcome Johnnyjet. Keep em' flying.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Eeek. You're scary.

I think Phyrebrat is merely pointing out that dancing around an issue doesn't always work. (And he should know....)

Sorry, blame it on my super-strict Mackem and Geordie parents

On a related note, when it comes to things like crits and betas, and feedback in general, I'd far more prefer something that isn't sugarcoated. I can be sensitive about things but not precious. But there's a difference between sensitivity and mollycoddling. Just give it to me straight so I can either change my approach or disagree. It's like Jo said above; writing is hard. If we're going to get offended at a bit of criticism or whatnot, we're going to have to develop a tougher skin pretty quick. (But don't take that as a license to tell me I'm a @@@@ writer )

Okay, sorry, back to topic.

pH