Weekly Contest Changes # 3

Hellon, I think its better that the judges just go about their business without being known and made open to more criticism about favouritism every week. The mods and contest manager know what the judges vote for so they can do something if favouritism or whatever is an issue. We have to remember we dont have an unlimited pool of judges, they should be encouraged not discouraged from being a judge.
^^^

I'm going to disagree with this part of your statement..shoud we let them just go about their business...well if favouritism is an issue...hell no! I've commented on a few of your poems Colm...I'm very blunt/honest as I'm sure you know...I'll give you a 5 or...I won't vote at all...still you will be able to see all that so...if I was judging your poem you'd still get the same input from me...I would not have a problem if you knew I was a judge...so...if I was a judge and I thought your poem was good...you probably already know that because I would have left you a comment earlier on in the week.

I personally would think twice about being a judge if everybody knew my votes every week. Sure it would be interesting for the winners/hms to see who voted their poem but judges can only vote for 3 poems so some writers of the majority of poems that werent picked might start thinking 'favouritism,' no matter who wins. Personally I think judges could do without that because it would keep cropping up.

Anyway, lets agree to disagree and not fill up this thread too fast or get bogged down. Id like to see as many members discussing as possible, there are good suggestions coming through :)

Just before you flick me from your shoulder Colm...this time around...or maybe the last time...I've had a couple of HM's...in my opinion that's it...you've done your dash...accept that you ddn't win....I do not think my poem should remain there it clogs up next weeks winners...get rid of them all..You seem to be for not logging up anything after all...

Hellon.

You can address me as you like, else if you'd prefer a name, you can call me Gaurav.

And yes I am sure it wouldnt stop you from leaving.

My apologies, if I have in any manner offended you. It wasn't intentional and I wasn't finger pointing anyone in particular.

Oh and Colm, if a member turns senior with just 30 comments, it increases the number of seniors that spawn every week, which in turn increases the nominations, every week more and more poems could be nominated, an invitation to excess burden on the judges. I could be wrong, as I ponder upon the consequences of present shaping the future and not being too ethical about the present situation.

Vi,

I think you may have read my post differently than I intended. I don't think its good to have the same poets judge term after term. There was a lot of fuss because we had this happening before. That's why I'm saying if we change things drastically, the chances of good judges accepting the job are probably going to dwindle. We already had a hard time getting five people to accept the last few times around.. that's all I mean.

The judges should be kept anonymous until after they are done judging. When it was known I was a judge, I was swarmed with PMs,.both nice and nasty, from members and other judges. The last thing we want is for judges to discuss who should win together, right? Hellon wasn't it you that had a huge issue because you thought two judges were discussing winners? They need to stay anonymous until it is done.

Oh, there's something that I meant to address early on in this thread, but forgot. We have been keeping track of our judges and the winners of each week's contest for almost a year now. We do this for two reasons.

1. Just to keep a record (I like my data, honestly!)
2. To watch for any potential bias in the judges. We keep the list so that it would be clear to us if someone was voting for the same 3 people every week. So far, I haven't seen that happening. Of course, some people prefer the style of particular poets, and so are more likely to vote for their poems, but this would happen no matter what. Since we have a mix of several different judges, the wins are never dependent on only one judge.

Anyway, I just wanted to make it clear that we do keep a close eye on the process, even if we don't always post up data publicly. I think it's important for judges to be anonymous. This frees them from heckling, but it also ensures that they are acting from their own minds. They don't have friends PMing them, saying "You should totally vote for Jane's poem, isn't it great?" Even if there's nothing negative intended, knowing who the judges are would have some unneeded effect.

Regarding the Senior Member requirements: A member would have to have EITHER 100 poems, OR a certain number of praised comments, OR must have been a member for a minimum length of time. Not all three. (Just a clarification)

To Britt, Hellon, and others who come and go: Do you feel that you would still be able to be involved in the contest process with a higher number of praised comments? I'm sure you both have plenty, now, but I know it takes a while, and if you've just deleted your account... I'd like some way to ensure that past long-time members (who have already "paid their dues") could be included.

Alright. I get your point.

And I agree, I may have read the post differently, my bad ^^,

Sib, I have like 60 praised comments or so, and it didn't very long to do it. I comment pretty regularly, and found I got senior status within the first couple days I was back with this account. It didn't take long for me at all. I think even with needing 30 praises it wouldn't have taken me very long, either.

Poem wise... I'm not posting any of my old poems on my new account, so that has taken me a while.. but if I were to post older poems, it wouldn't much an issue there either (for me).

I wouldn't be opposed to Senior members only having 1 vote per week.

Why? Because I feel that this would really make the senior member choose which out of the 3 poems they like the most deserve to be nominated.

Sibs thanks for the update and summary in the thread. I think everything else is great.

No problemo, Amanda!

"I wouldn't be opposed to Senior members only having 1 vote per week."

I kind of like that idea, too. It should cut down on the number of poems judges have to read through each week. I'm open to it either way, though.

1 vote per week would definitely cut down on the amount of poems judges will have to read. I am torn, because I like having three, but 1 does sound like a better idea.

If doing this, would we still only have 1 nomination per poem as suggested?

I don't think so. I think that would have the opposite effect. If people don't want to "waste" their nominations, they can check how many there are on their own.

I guess we could do 2 noms per senior member...

Maybe start at two and reduce if necessary. Ask the judges if it helps them

Judging Game: ^ Hey guys and girls, still waiting for 5 players. It is just a game, for fun, nothing serious, and will not affect any suggestions above. I will keep it anonymous, so no one or their personal choices will be exposed. Players will be listed as Judge #1-5.

There are really good, heavy hitters (good poems) this week, and a large number of them, so it will be lots of fun, and the outcome will be probably no ties, when using the 1-5 scale on all poems in the current nomination list. What about you mods, aren't you going to participate. Be sporting now, please. Yes, the purpose is to compare and criticize the game scale to see how it really weighs in (not the existing scale or method) and learn from it. You just have to read all 40 or so poems quickly before they change tonight. No commenting needed for the game. And Larry, if current judges participate, it will not matter either, as I do not know who any are, nor they are suppossed to tell me. Nor am I a judge, you know that well, don't you!

EDIT : Anyway, no risk takers yet tonight, so got to forget this for this week, but if 5 of you are interested in the game, pm me any time this coming week, and I will make a set of scoring rules out quickly, to have fun, and learn, educate and improvise on ourselves, the scientific way.

EDIT AGAIN: Late breaking news! Foun 3 players for this week, need 2 more please...show me your sporting (not defensive or fighting) spirits, please! It is just fun and educational, to prove that yes there is always scope for betterment in even the best systems.

Its just a front page for one week guys,
not an oscar award.

not that it doesn't have any value
I mean yes,weekly wins are great..

but I think this pondering is just getting out of hand..

we went from suggesting a top 5,to suggesting only having one nomination..

it is insane really.
what we have to do is simply choose our judges carefully,
I mean also do like re-search on them..well a little
as to what type of comments they leave behind,
what they tend to nominate..

also,I think the one nomination per senior member
will only decrease the chances for new members to get noticed..

but that's just my humble opinion..

I say,leave it as it is.
use a substitute in case of a tie
and keep an eye on the judges..

also,
new members who cry constantly for people to notice them through pm's and stuff.

well then...you sitting in a corner isn't going to get you anywhere..and those please leave comments pm's are annoying as hell.

you want comments? well go out there and comment too,chances are they will return the favor.

make yourself known,
come into the threads..speak your mind..
we don't bite .. join a club,
jump up and down..

i don't know,but no one is going to roam this
whole site looking for your one good poem..

I mean look at lonely soul,
he's obviously home.

ttsskk tsssk.

Perhaps a solution to the people who come and go so often by deleting their accounts could be a way to temperarily disable your account, so it is basically deleted until you choose to re-enable it. It would keep your information stored and saved, but appear deleted to anyone who goes looking for it. And when you choose to come back, just log in and have it show a message "this account has been disabled by the user, would you like to re-enable it?" I think facebook has something like this on it, but I've never used it myself. then members can come and go as they please or disable their account when they are going to be offline for awhile and re-enable it again when they can get online again.

I agree a lot of the others that it is best if the judges are left anonymous, not to be left to their own business, but it also allows them to vote based on what they actually feel is the best poem. As people vote based on favoritism, others also fall to peer pressure. Not only that though, also for those who just want a win by their name, knowing who the judges are might cause them to try and play to a certain judges preference or style of poetry which compromises the contest. It shouldn't be that much different from the contests we hold in this section of the boards. Most of the people who come up with the contest ideas keep the people they have asked to judge quiet until after the contest is done, and also ask the poets to not post their poems till the contest is done.

Perhaps if there was a way for Janis to program it, Maybe allow poets to submit their poems to the contest which will keep it from appearing on their profile for a time, and just put it on a "submitted poems" page anonymously. Maybe make it an option under the "submit poem" button. You can check a box that submits the poem to the contest when you are posting it and thereby does not show the poem on your profile for a week and does not allow those who view it to see the author or the link from the poem to their profile for that week, but it can still aquire comments like a normal poem. This will allow authors to choose if they even want to be involved with the contest. After the poem is submitted to a page, then the senior members can choose from the submitted poems which ones they would like to nominate. This would mean the poems being nominated would be completely anonymous. This allows those who are doing the nominating to be less biased as well as the judges to not be influenced by knowing who the authors are. It might also cut down on the number of poems that actually make it to being nominated, there can be endless numbers of poems submitted by any member, senior or not, and the senior members can be the ones to weed through the good and the bad like they do just by reading poems in any of the categories now, and then choose the ones they think should go onto the judges for the contest. This is just a preliminary suggestion, that could be tweeked, but I think it might allow more for a "double-blind" contest. The members don't know who the authors are and neither do the judges. Scientists do it to allow for less biased results in experiments, why can't the same concept be applied to the results of a poetry contest. The goal is after all to achieve results less based on favoritism and bias and more on the actual merit of the poems.

Also I agree with colm that a poem should only be up for the contest once. Most contests throughout the site on the threads ask that the poets write a new poem for a new contest and not re-use and recycle old ones to try and gain a win. If the poem doesn't win one week, accept it and try to learn from it, and improve your writing for the next weekly contest.

Hi Gaurav, that's much easier for me to remember haha!!! No you didn't offend me in any way...I was just saying that loosing my SMS would not affect any decision I would make regarding deleting my account....nor would any little win flag next to my name.

Britt....I never had any issue with judges discussing potential winners....my issue was with what was said about these poems and the reason given for not voting for them.Also, one judge (who was on the list as a potential judge for the current panel) suggesting to the other that they vote for a poem written by them. Although, in theory, this new set up (annonymous judges) is a good idea...obviously it's not working either if someone found out you were a judge last term. I wonder how that happened BTW?

The judges should be kept anonymous until after they are done judging.

^^

Why is that? If you take the most popular reality TV shows out now (X factor/Idol etc) the judges are all known and, no...we don't agree with them sometimes but...they are doing their job at the end of the day (ok..getting huge salaries I know) so...why not (just for a week or so) have the judges put up their choices and let the the rest of us decide on a winner?

They found out because they could tell my comments. I tried to mask myself but someone who knew me well figured it out and told a bunch of people.

I think we all decide on winners when we 1. Nominate poems and 2. Nominate the judges

This is getting so overly complicated, it makes me not want to post poems, comment, nominate etc. It makes me want nothing to do with the site but hang in my club, and I know others who feel that way. Why is this even a big deal?

I am simply giving the Mods my opinion, and trying to throw ideas out there that might create a fairer system. If an issue that people are unhappy with is just tucked under the rug without being resolved because it is too complicated, or causes too much drama, it will just come up again. Some people think this issue is a big deal, others do not. Some people would just like their opinions, and suggestions to be heard when the people in charge of changes ask for an open opinion on the matter. This thread shouldn't be used for arguing, but to state your opinion so the mods know, add HELPFUL suggestions, and then wait for a decision to be made on the matter. People should not be attacking others for an opinion they have stated here. It should be understood that if you are wanting your opinion heard you should also ponder another person's opinion before you disagree with it. You are more than welcome to disagree with another member, more than welcome to your own opinion, but try to take a look through the other view, or remember that they have a right to their opinion as well and a right to disagree with yours, and there isn't a reason for this back and forth. State your opinion clearly, and intelligently, and the mods will know how you feel about it and take it under consideration when they make their decision, and that should be the end of it. If you don't like their decision discuss it in private because it is a private matter.

My issue is you get questioned for commenting someone in your club, maybe because your club members, maybe because they have an issue with the comment, I'm not sure. There have been several times full discussions have happened in MM's comment/poetry area because people took issue with a comment.. or nomination. Which leads me to my next issue - nothing is going to be good enough for anyone, and unless you've been a judge, or been involved heavily in the judging/contest process, it's hard to truly understand what should be done, or what is going to cause more trouble.

You nominate someone 3 times - thats what Janis wanted and three times really isn't much, especially when you use them on poems already nominated. No big deal. But then you get questioned about why did you nominate this poem? Or this member is a member of your club, thats why you nominated it etc. It's frustrating.

Now we have all kinds of issues popping up about how to totally change the system (in which case we don't even know if it can/will be done, perhaps we should ask Janis, or have the mods ask him what his intentions are or if he would be willing to change anything).

It seriously is making people want to hide out in their clubs, since they're accused of favoritism anyway, may as well.

Favouritism ain't my thing, but, in this situation, I'll be glad, to make an exception woah-ah-oh-ah......