Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Probably not my week

  • Mar. 9th, 2006 at 1:33 AM
Willow
or .. a case of you don't understand till it happens to you?

The Ditmar Natcon Committee have deemed it necessary to redo the ballot for the 2006 Ditmars.
If you look carefully, I have been dropped from 2 of the 3 shortlistings I was in and one whole category has been removed - best fan achievement. I'd like to know why I wasn't eligible for that category. You'd think that a popularist awards system would be bound to the popularist vote.

Now it might be a case of being too tired since I haven't slept much this week or a perceived run of bad internet luck but .. I'm gonna have to switch sides on the Ditmar argument and move to the Dark [info]benpeek side.

What a bunch of unprofessionals - that they didn't check the ballot properly before they released it. Because I can tell ya .. kinda feels like a nice swift kick in the gut to see your name being the only one removed from a category.

Just as well awards don't mean shit, eh!

Comments

[info]threemonkeys wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 01:43 am (UTC)
That is very sad - you deserve those nominations.

I know from sideline involvement in the similar process over here with the similar Sir Julius Vogel's that there is a lot of pushing and pulling around categories and things do get moved and dropped. But never after public release - that is just wrong.

[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 01:45 am (UTC)
Its unprofessional - and actually looks like people have complained.
[info]idling wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 02:02 am (UTC)
I'm sorry that you've experienced this disappointment, but I also think it's a shame that you were hoping for a nomination in the first place. Awards were not your reason for creating ASiF and they are not an appropriate indicator of your success. That you have achieved a nomination in ASiF's first year is remarkable. Please don't expect too much too soon, or let something like this stop you from enjoying the participation and support that you have generated in the community through your project.
[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 02:07 am (UTC)
Thanks for that - you are right. And being nominated or not nominated and winning or not winning are not going to change my objectives for ASif! or how I work to achieve those.

However it feels pretty crap to be the only person to have your name removed from a category after they tell you people voted to put it there. And done so publicly as well. Ostracised is kinda how it feels.

I guess I'd rather have no nominations at all than have some taken away from me as though I've done something wrong.

I guess more than that, I object to the lack of professionalism in that - it takes away from them giving away "professional" verses "fan" awards and also, it reduces their own credibility. And that was something I guess I was originally defending.
[info]j_daffodil wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 02:07 am (UTC)
I had no idea what you were talking about so I went and checked it out and omg I am raging on your behalf. Thats so mean!

*giggle* plus I figured out your real name from looking at the noms... not that you wouldn't have told me if I'd just asked

Umm, how can nobody be eligible for the Fan Achievement award?
[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 02:08 am (UTC)
Thank you for the shared outrage! That means a lot. And yes you could have asked my for my real name!

I have emailed the convenors to as why I was not considered eligible on retrospect, I will update as soon as I know more.
[info]strangedave wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 02:39 am (UTC)
OK, first, I agree that its unprofessional to not check the ballot properly before it was released. It would have been more unprofessional to go through the whole process with it incorrect, especially if it meant ruling some things out at the final ballot. But it would have been better to have not told people incorrect categories in the first place.

Second, I am going to say that I am part of the committee that suggested the changes to the ballot. That doesn't mean I agreed with all the changes personally, but I am in a position to explain the changes. I can say there was no bias or personal intent, and all changes were made after discussion between a whole committee. Changes were made on the basis of eligibility only - imagine if a large number of people had nominated a short story for novel, should we leave the story in the wrong category just because that was the popular choice for nomination? Decisions were made with similar reasoning.

The reason why you aren't eligible for fan achievement is very simple. The fan achievement category is defined in the rules as being for achievements 'not eligible in existing categories'. So, if you are eligible for fan production, you are therefore logically not eligible for fan achievement.

I know its disappointing.

I wasn't aware that Ben had much against the Ditmars, his beef was with the AAs I thought. The Ditmars are run by fans, and in this case they are being run by fans who have never done it before. Its a screw up, but they are in a difficult position.
[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 02:43 am (UTC)
So then, the committee met after the ballot went out? I agree that a short story should not go in the novel category even if nominated by 100 people but that should be obvious and should have been checked before the ballot was released.

Many thanks for explaining the changes.
[info]ashamel wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 02:59 am (UTC)
Short story/novel is a strange case, but if it was something more easily confused, like short story/novella, I think votes for one category should count as votes in the other. For example, 100 votes for Aspect Hunter (from Daikaiju, one of the things I voted for) as a short story should just be transferred to it as a novella.

I don't know if that happened here, but if nominations have just been thrown out because of confusion, I think you have grounds for complaint.
[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 03:02 am (UTC)
I do agree on the fan production v fan zine because the definitions themselves are not clear as to where you should place what.
[info]ashamel wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 03:06 am (UTC)
Also, did they write and explain the decision to you, or re-release the ballot paper and let you discover you had been dropped? Because that would be rather awful.
[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 03:07 am (UTC)
Which do you think, given the lack of professionality of any kind? I discovered it on [info]punkrocker1991's blog.
[info]ashamel wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 03:12 am (UTC)
I was just thinking this morning we should get round to voting. But that sort of thing may change my mind. Commiserations.
[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 03:14 am (UTC)
I was going to pay for membership to vote but I too am thinking otherwise.
[info]strangedave wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 10:31 am (UTC)
Everyone nominated before has ended up nominated in at least one category, with one exception. A single work really only should be eligible in one category, unless nominated for different things (ie art/writing).

The one exception is Justine Larbaliester for Best New Talent. She simply isn't eligible for Best New Talent, as while its her first fiction nomination, she was nominated for professional awards for her non-fiction, and the Best New Talent award doesn't distinguish between fiction and non-fiction (or editing, or art, etc).

The system you describe, where nominations for the wrong category are moved to the right category, is the normal one.
[info]ashamel wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 10:18 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification.
[info]strangedave wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 10:23 am (UTC)
There are two committees - the Ditmar subcommittee, and the natcon standing committee. The Natcon standing committee was the one that recommended the changes, but we only found out about the nominations at the same time as everyone else.

The short story vs novel was just to illustrate that the correct category is the correct category no matter what the vote - some of the mistakes made were not so obvious, and were missed.
[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 02:43 am (UTC)
Ooh! Why was ASif! dropped from best fan zine?
[info]benpeek wrote:
Mar. 14th, 2006 09:10 pm (UTC)
I wasn't aware that Ben had much against the Ditmars, his beef was with the AAs I thought.

actually, i don't have anything against the ditmars. the problems that exist in it have existed for such a long time that i just kinda view them as being part of the award (by this i mean the block voting). but i did think it was a double standard to remain on them, given my opinion of the aurealis awards.
[info]cassiphone wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 03:27 am (UTC)
I sort of see the logic of Fan Production being only things not eligible in other categories... and I could even be convinced that ASiF isn't a Fanzine (I wasn't sure which categories it best suited which is why, like many others evidently, I nominated it in several categories). But this is a lousy way to do it - rereleasing the ballot without making it clear what has changed and why, or contacting you personally to explain.

And by the way, Ticonderoga Online isn't a fanzine either! They pay for fiction.
[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 03:30 am (UTC)
Well there's the Ticond element on top of mine - where not only have they been trying to convey that since they *pay* for fiction that makes them *pro* by the *ditmar* criteria but also that they fail to recognise the actual editorial team, even after being corrected.

Secondly, the whole handling of this situation has sucked. And I'm deeply disappointed because I want to take the scene seriously and you just can't when this kind of amateurism happens. It makes me think (in response to a comment above) that if the team is inexperienced, then perhaps the idea of the Past President being part of the new committee, as is done in most committees, should be considered.

Its very very very poor form.
[info]strangedave wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 10:32 am (UTC)
putting the past president on the committee isn't really practical - the ditmar committee is usually a sub-committee of the natcon committee, which changes every year and can be from very different states, groups of people, etc - but I think I will be recommending that the natcon standing committe (which usually does include the previous natcon chair) should have a chance to vet any nominations before they go out.
[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 10th, 2006 02:11 am (UTC)
I think that's a good idea if they are going to want to vet it later ... better to do so sooner.

Its a shame though that past presidents can't be involved - even remotely. Reinventing the wheel wastes time.
[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 03:32 am (UTC)
And of course, reading the ballot before releasing it and sorting out inconsistencies, if there are some, would also have been good.

I actually don't see why its not Fan Production AND Fanzine, given what has been left in the categories.
[info]chrisbarnes wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 05:02 am (UTC)
You have my sympathy; it must be very disappointing to have this happen. But rest assured, regardless of awards, ASif! is a terrific achievement and I for one really appreciate the time you put into it. Respect!
[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 05:30 am (UTC)
Well thank you.

And afterall, thats the kind of feedback that's the most desirable!
[info]benpayne wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 09:20 am (UTC)
It is unfortunate they didn't warn you first, or attempt to explain the situation to you...

The removal of Fan achievement makes sense, as others have noted, if it's an award only for stuff that doesn't get recognised elsewhere. Will be interested to hear why it was dropped from the fanzine category though...

I doubt it was anything personal, though you're right to be miffed at the way it was handled...

but as others have said, you should be very proud to be on there... and you know, the fact that the site originally made the nominations for three different categories would seem to indicate it's pretty popular, to get enough support with a split vote!

[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 10th, 2006 02:08 am (UTC)
You are right. Although perhaps the strength of the split of the vote also shows how unclear the different categories are.

I am proud so many people voted for me.

I just am saddened by the lack of professionality in the whole thing.
[info]markdeniz wrote:
Mar. 9th, 2006 09:33 am (UTC)
It sounds like a big mess although the number one thing to keep in mind is that ASif! rocks and I, for one, feel privileged to be working alongside you cause you rock too!

(When was the last time the best film of the year won the Oscars or the best album won a Grammy?)
[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 10th, 2006 02:10 am (UTC)
Very true. And winning an oscar is not the criteria I use to pick my films - although I usually try toi get round to seeing all the shortlistings in the categories.
[info]markdeniz wrote:
Mar. 12th, 2006 11:36 am (UTC)
I know exactly what you mean! ;-)
[info]angriest wrote:
Mar. 10th, 2006 01:30 am (UTC)
Please don't be too harsh on the Ditmar subcommittee, despite your misgivings - they are a very stressful thing to run, no one is getting paid to do it, and mistakes are going to happen if you haven't coordinated a set of awards before.
[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 10th, 2006 02:14 am (UTC)
I think I would be inclined to be nicer had my email from yesterday morning requesting clarification been answered.

It would be nice if there was courtesy shown to the names on the ballot which represent people - and that doesn't have anythign to do with experience. Mistakes happen. Its how you fix them that matters.
[info]angriest wrote:
Mar. 10th, 2006 06:59 am (UTC)
True.
[info]girliejones wrote:
Mar. 10th, 2006 07:02 am (UTC)
but you know .. I'm over it now ... I got too much to do :-)

Latest Month

July 2009
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow