DISCUSSION -- July 2015 75-word Writing Challenge

[Bowler1]

Bowler1 appears looking very happy and toting holsters, bandoliers and utility belts filled with RAY GUNS and fully charged battery packs. "I think I could be up to a bit of smiting. It sounds like a tough job and I'd have to put some long hours in, but I'm game."

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

DG Jones -- In extreme circumstances, an act of deception can be an act of affection. Even so, no dobut it will haunt the heart of the deceiver.

 

[Dan Jones]

Lovely review, Victoria. Thank you

 

[Ihe]

Hey guys, here's a possibly controversial (maybe?) suggestion: I was recently checking out the past 100-word anonymous challenge, and I thought that that mechanic was genius, and could easily be implemented in the 75-worders and 300-worders. Any practical reason I'm not aware of as to why it hasn't been done yet? Aside from the extra guessing factor, which can be fun, the anonymity is a very strong anti-bias tool, adding an extra layer of impartiality.

When identities are in the mix, people can be unconsciously swayed by other things other than the story itself, no matter how doggedly we try to be impartial (mercy votes, not voting someone who already has enough votes, comradery or healthy "rivalry" with the "votee", rewarding stylistic consistency throughout various contests, getting "tired/bored" of stylistic consistency and considering someone progressively less creative, etc). In anonymity, a story can truly stand on its own (I'm sure some of the veterans can more or less guess right a couple of stories. But this alone would not sway results).

I'm not attacking the integrity of these contests, nor do I doubt the sincerity of everyone who votes. I truly believe anyone who's won or has been mentioned has been very much worthy of such honours (at least, from what I've seen since entering the Chrons ). And I'm sure the voters here think they are voting honestly, but it's a fact of life our minds can't part with all sorts of hidden biases.

What do you all think? The added impartiality might not change anything, but it will give the contests extra transparency, at the very least. Also, newer members might feel more inclined to enter these contests if veiled. Seeing the "old guard" (pardon the license ) with their millions of comments and likes in their profile can be very intimidating as well, when you see them submitting their stories (God knows I was cowed at first, and still sorta am, even before reading their oft-masterpieces). For full disclosure, I'll say the only downside I see to this is that the host of the contests would not be able to vote.

So, is there a reason for not doing this? If this has already come up somewhere else or it has been explained, then ignore me, but not before directing me to the pertinent thread.

 

[Dan Jones]

Hoooo boy.

Hey Ihe. Maybe one of the mods will give the proper official answer, but the 100-worder is not considered an "official" challenge (hence why it's in the Workshop section, and not hosted by a mod but by a guest, such as yours truly).

On a personal note, I like things the way they are; you get to know somebody's style and approach as the months go by with the official challenges, and build up a picture of who and what they are trying to do (which incidentally helps with the 100-worder guessing game - in theory...).

I don't think people are that biased - certainly not consciously. I'm not. There are veterans who will have won a number of times, but then, if you do something for long enough, you're gonna get better at it. You'll have noticed some of the stories posted by those with thousands of posts are just brilliant, right? Well, they've had some practise

Then again, there are plenty of months where the vets don't get a single vote and someone new can come along with something really fab. In general, though, it takes a lot of practise to start creating stories as good as some of these guys. I've been here for about 7-8 months now, and I genuinely think that I've only just started to get the hang of the formula (for me) for making these entries better, and hopefully good. And with luck I'll continue to do so. Incidentally I've not won one yet, but after a couple of months you realise that's not really the point.

I like seeing a person's entry and, to an extent, knowing what I'm probably going to get - such as Jo and Victoria's rich characters, Mosaix's wit, Harebrain's irreverence, Juliana's magical touch, etc etc, Cat's Cradle's and Chrisp's wordplay, etc etc etc etc

But it's an interesting question!

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

A. Fare Wells -- Deception can come in many forms. Sometimes it takes the form of a joke taken too seriously.

 

[Ihe]

I don't think people are that biased - certainly not consciously.

Definitely. No one's at fault, and I'm not flinging any blame. But the subconscious can pull quite a few strings, and that is precisely at the centre of my argument.

There are veterans who will have won a number of times, but then, if you do something for long enough, you're gonna get better at it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this out of the novice's resentment or envy of the veterans' results (I only dip my toes in the good kind of envy--wait, is there such thing?). I don't have a problem with established Chroners getting the praise they deserve. I agree they have been hacking at this much longer than many of us, and it indeed shows in their writing. Their victories are justified. But I think I have a valid point here, and simply maintaining the status quo out of nostalgia is not.

I like seeing a person's entry and, to an extent, knowing what I'm probably going to get - such as Jo and Victoria's rich characters, Mosaix's wit, Harebrain's irreverence, Juliana's magical touch, etc etc, Cat's Cradle's and Chrisp's wordplay, etc etc etc etc

That is a good point. There is a different flavour to knowing the competition. But you yourself have just said that you expect certain things from certain people, writers that you admire for their creativeness and/or style. This is a pretty big bias IMO, because you would not be voting only the story, but to a certain extent, you'll be voting for all their past entries as well--your memories of them--accumulating extraneous merits on to a story that should be naked and raw for consideration. Your historical perception of another writer's perceived talent does cast a filtered lens (positive OR negative) to what you read from them. If I were to submit 2 horrible stories in a row, you wouldn't give my third story the same chance you would others. Conversely, if you liked my writing, you might see my next story in a brighter light.

I'm not knocking the obvious talent here, nor the results. I'm looking at the procedure. I believe making the challenges anonymous won't affect who wins, but it might affect some mentions and the odd vote in the "mid-tier" stories. As I said, maybe nothing would change, but you never know.

PS: I won't take issue with things remaining as they are, burning banners and breaking shop windows and such. I love these challenges like crazy, and I consider there is fair play from the moral perspective of all who participate. I do question the fair play issues intrinsic to the mechanics of non-anon voting in general. It has nothing to do with the participants.

I don't mean to ruffle any feathers here, nor am I a "forum revolutionary". But a valid question is a valid question.

 

[Dan Jones]

Well, you certainly put forward an assertive and impassioned argument!

Oh, and I certainly don't see you as a "forum revolutionary" - you're clearly far too nice and well mannered for such hooliganism

Let's see what the mods say about it

 

[Jo Zebedee]

@Ihe - but have you looked at the anon challenge votes? Of the few regulars that enter, the results largely mirror the main challenges. People like Mosaix, Victoria Silverwolf, TDZ etc do well. That, for me, told me all I needed to know (and I did wonder when it started) - we're not far off the mark.

Also, for me, I give the veterans less leeway in the challenges. For them to get my vote, it has to be sublime, whereas I might vote for someone newer who raises a smile or a question. So, sometimes, it can be a hindrance....

Edit - as, perhaps, one of the big hitters, I bomb far more than I do well, especially in the 75er.

 

[chrispenycate]

The amount of extra work for the mod who has to receive, post and then, at the end, explain who was what would be considerable. And it would just about have to be Ursa, who specialises in posting seconds before the challenge closes.

But I am incredibly proud of my fellow Chronics, in that in five years I have yet to see any cliqueism, any 'you vote for mine and I'll vote for yours' mentality whatsoever.

But believe me, you don't see the mods doing anything, so we've obviously got time on our hands - actually, we really don't need any more work. At all.

And there are very good reasons not to vote for Chrispy, just as an example - old established challengees will explain that to you - and how could we maintainthat if nobody knew where I was?

 

[Dan Jones]

Nice one, Chrisp. You've got my vote tied up, as promised

 

[Mad Alice]

Not to mention that should all challenges become anonymous, this might be seen as an encouragment to indulge in tomfoolery and wordplay.

Not that it seems to stop anyone as it is, but perhaps we should be cautious in adopting this course of action.
(In case in retalliation for the extra jobs, Ursa Major decides to offer up some serious pun-ative damages.)

 

[Ashleyne]

I'm not a mod (far from it), but I wanna give my thoughts. I love the anonymous challenges, but due to attempted trickery, I feel like authors are more themselves in the normal challenges. It's nice to have both. I personally wouldn't want the 75er or the 300er to become anonymous.

I kinda like that, in the anonymous challenges, some people see the darkest stories and attribute them to me. These challenges are a good way of joining in with the chrons community, letting people know who you are and what your style is. To make them all anonymous could kill the talkative, friendly atmosphere. Familiarity is nice and I don't think it effects the voting. Some newbies do extremely well, considering there can be 50 plus other authors to compete against.

When I first started entering, I didn't receive any votes for months. It inspired me to improve my writing, rather than blame other people for not liking my stories.

As far as biases go, I believe I'm an unbiased voter and I trust that other voters are the same. I've seen people win one challenge, then get no votes in the next. And I'm guessing there are people who've been entering for a long time and have never won. IMO, the main reasons to enter these challenges is to have fun, receive feedback (through mentions, shortlistings, votes or lack off) and improve.

 

[Juliana]

When I first started entering, I didn't receive any votes for months. It inspired me to improve my writing, rather than blame other people for not liking my stories.

Same here. Took me a while to work my way up to mentions, let alone votes!

 

[Luiglin]

Same here. Took me a while to work my way up to mentions, let alone votes!

I've gone in the opposite direction.

 

[Ihe]

People like Mosaix, Victoria Silverwolf, TDZ etc do well. That, for me, told me all I needed to know (and I did wonder when it started) - we're not far off the mark.

As I said, I don't think making it anon will change the rate of usual winners/favourites.

I give the veterans less leeway in the challenges. For them to get my vote, it has to be sublime, whereas I might vote for someone newer who raises a smile or a question.

This would be a perfect example of the bias I am talking about. Technically, it's not fair towards the more established writers. A good story is a good story independently of who wrote it, and you are placing higher, unfair expectations on those who you consider should give more (because you previously know of what they are capable of).
Remember, I'm not arguing to "bring down the heavyweights". I'm arguing for true impartiality, no matter who benefits from it, if anyone does at all. You could say I'm a story-purist, taking into account only the content of the narrative itself, without frills. I might be a bit radical in this respect though.

The amount of extra work for the mod who has to receive, post and then, at the end, explain who was what would be considerable.

This is a practical reason and a very good point I hadn't considered.

But I am incredibly proud of my fellow Chronics, in that in five years I have yet to see any cliqueism, any 'you vote for mine and I'll vote for yours' mentality whatsoever.

I haven't suggested otherwise. The issue is not with the participants, but with the voting mechanics.

this might be seen as an encouragment to indulge in tomfoolery and wordplay.

Only until the novelty wears off (one or two months).

It inspired me to improve my writing, rather than blame other people for not liking my stories.

I can't help but feel this is a bit of a jab at me (with no ill-intent, I'm sure). Ouch, and now I'm bleeding all over the new carpet . I don't blame absolutely anyone. I'm learning the craft and I'm light-years away from even considering myself a peer to you all. This point I raise did not come about from any bitter feelings of inferiority, nor am I hoping to "make things go my way". It was a simple and legitimate concern over voting procedures.

As far as biases go, I believe I'm an unbiased voter and I trust that other voters are the same.

I've stressed that the participants are blameless. But we, as people, simply cannot help but be biased, even if we don't realize it. There is no such thing as an unbiased person. The brain doesn't work that way. We categorize and we use heuristics. Propensity for prejudice and favouritism are both ingrained in us at the genetic level.

To make them all anonymous could kill the talkative, friendly atmosphere.

This is another valid point. The discussion thread would die down quite a bit. But it would gain the guessing game... although it's a game only the veterans would enjoy, so, yeah. I agree with this argument.

Familiarity is nice and I don't think it effects the voting

This will need some argumentation behind it . I've argued against this specifically, and if you'll allow me to toot my own horn, pretty convincingly too.

Allright guys, please don't banish me or burn me at the stake. It was just something to think about. I see here that consensus tilts towards keeping things as they are. No problem with that. For me, there are two good reasons that go against my proposition: 1)it would be unfair abuse to the one in charge, and 2)the pre- and post-contest banter would lose its spark. I'm still putting up the banner of "anti-bias" on the side of my empty encampment (oh, such loneliness here), but I can agree those two are weighty reasons, enough to cancel out my preaching in the desert, at least. I extend an olive branch. No harm done. I was just saying .

And please, please, pretty please, remember, I'm in no way suggesting there's willing partiality of any kind.

 

[TitaniumTi]

For me, the challenges are as much about learning the craft as about competition. Hence, I appreciate the feedback received through reviews, mentions and the occasional vote (or the more frequent lack of votes). I also appreciate the opportunity to see how other writers craft their stories -- plot, style, language etc -- to fit each month's theme and genre. Being able to identify individual writers and follow their stories from month to month is an important part of this.

 

[Parson]

Parson, think of it as your hard-drive confessing its malware sins and getting absolution. Yes it takes a while, but the road to righteous computing is not an easy path to follow. It is beset by many trojans offering a quick fix whilst making you pay with your PC's OS.

This made me grin, but I would much rather follow the path of grace. I'm much closer to an evangelical than an old line Catholic.

Running a Linux OS is the safest bet by far. I run Windows along side my Linux system too, but I would never allow Windows to go online, it's too dangerous, too many...erm... windows of opportunity for hackers! Periodically re-installing your OS is a good practice too. Also when doing important stuff like banking, it is best all round to use a boot up non writeable 'live' dvd/cd OS, so that there is no chance the OS will leave any record of your activity should anyone gain access.

Quite the lovely idea. Probably paranoid in a good way, but a bit over the top of my abilities I'm afraid.

 

[Ashleyne]

But we, as people, simply cannot help but be biased, even if we don't realize it.

Nope. I make a conscious choice to vote for stories, not people.

However, if we're talking about taste, then I'm extremely biased. I shortlist and vote for stories that appeal to my tastes.

 

[Ihe]

Nope. I make a conscious choice to vote for stories, not people.
However, if we're talking about taste, then I'm extremely biased. I shortlist and vote for stories that appeal to my tastes.

Ofc the choice is conscious, but an underlying bias remains all the same. You can't help it and you might not realize it, but it's there.
And about taste, that's another thing entirely. Ofc taste plays a part in voting, even if it was anon. I don't mind people's taste. I'm complaining about something else.

For me, the challenges are as much about learning the craft as about competition. Hence, I appreciate the feedback received through reviews, mentions and the occasional vote (or the more frequent lack of votes). I also appreciate the opportunity to see how other writers craft their stories -- plot, style, language etc -- to fit each month's theme and genre. Being able to identify individual writers and follow their stories from month to month is an important part of this.

I agree. But you could still match story to author once the big reveal happens, so I think that's a non-issue. I do agree about the immediate feedbacks. It would be a pity to lose them.