Mithril Awards 2005 suggestions
I'm putting my sugestions for the Mithril Awards for 2005 here so that I can find them later.
I think now is actually a good time to start work on the 2005 Mithril Awards. The experience is fresh and the interest is still high. Nothing needs to be set in stone for many months; so the administrators can take some time off to rest and relax. We have plenty of time to run several ideas up the flagpole and shot at them before any serious work needs to start.
To start with, I think the schedule needs to be adjusted a little and the processes formalized and as much as possible automated to alleviate the burden on the judges. By judges, I also mean the screeners. I haven't judged anything and don't intend to but, I have helped a couple judges with some of the computer issues. (Not the LJ, which I have just started to work with.)
With this in mind, I think the basic procedures for screening, judging and scoring should be defined and published on January 1st, 2005. This would give the volunteers who will be supporting the IT infrastructure three months before the 2005 awards open for submission.
When the submissions open on April 1st, all the rules and criteria for screening and judging should be posted and all the categories fully defined. This way they can be posted on the website for any submitter to review before nominating a work.
Between, January 1st and April 1st, the Administrative Judges could post the proposed rules and work with the larger community on refining them. With the procedure already established, the community will have a better idea on the impact of any given rule.
If the rules are found to be flawed afer submissions are opened, they should not be changed for 2005. Any flaws can be fixed the following year. On the other hand, the procedures should be subordinate to the rules. If a procedure needs to change to conform to a rule, it should be changed ASAP!
I think a link every submitted work should be posted on the website. This may require additional computer support but I am willing to look into this myself. Posting the submissions will allow the public to see what has been nominated and what has not been submitted. If the author choses not to have a piece judged, their choice can be posted on the list also. This should reduce wasted effort and prompt fans of unsubmitted works to make a nomination.
As for subjective comments made about the works during the screening and judging process, they should be private internal documents that are erased as soon as the final results are released. They should be mostly used so that the Administrative Judges can assure that the judging is proceeding in an orderly fashion and according to the published rules and procedures. Any preliminary score, rankings or such should also be private. Judgments are subjective by nature and honest opinions require some level of privacy to be free of external influence.
Alcanazar
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
alcanazar's journal
thankful