FAWC You, Two!

[sr71plt]

Same with me. I've never had an idea for a GM story. I'd write it if I did. I wouldn't mind trying, though, and I'd also be up for a FAWC in a single category.

Well, then, what better way to equalize the field for those of us who primarily write in a genre that is disadvantaged in an exercise like this? (Not disadvantaged in the comparative writing skills area for this exercise, but rather in the identifying the author area.)

I do write a lot out of my main area (although not always credited here with doing so), so it's not a stretch for me (while limiting me from writing scenarios that would spring more and more deeply to mind). But that doesn't mean that it isn't disadvantaging some writers here that the assumption here seems to be that the stories will be straight on Literotica and will have a whole lot of choice in categorizing here that some others don't have (over twenty categories for straight, one for GM, one for lesbian, and, functionally, none for bi).

 

[slyc_willie]

Same with me. I've never had an idea for a GM story. I'd write it if I did. I wouldn't mind trying, though, and I'd also be up for a FAWC in a single category.

Well, then, what better way to equalize the field for those of us who primarily write in a genre that is disadvantaged in an exercise like this? (Not disadvantaged in the comparative writing skills area for this exercise, but rather in the identifying the author area.)

I do write a lot out of my main area (although not always credited here with doing so), so it's not a stretch for me (while limiting me from writing scenarios that would spring more and more deeply to mind). But that doesn't mean that it isn't disadvantaging some writers here that the assumption here seems to be that the stories will be straight on Literotica and will have a whole lot of choice in categorizing here that some others don't have (over twenty categories for straight, one for GM, one for lesbian, and, functionally, none for bi).

I have been considering the single category idea ever since the idea of a Loving Wives FAWC was brought up. That particular category may not be the best choice, but who knows? Perhaps we could do a FAWC for each of the categories? That would cover the next 20+ challenges

 

[sr71plt]

I have been considering the single category idea ever since the idea of a Loving Wives FAWC was brought up. That particular category may not be the best choice, but who knows? Perhaps we could do a FAWC for each of the categories? That would cover the next 20+ challenges

I was just brain burbling until the part of the discussion I'm really interested in floats along.

 

[slyc_willie]

I was just brain burbling until the part of the discussion I'm really interested in floats along.

I have a feeling the critiques won't start until after the winner is announced. Not that there's any real reason to wait, but the impression I get is that those who would critique haven't yet read everything.

 

[sr71plt]

I have a feeling the critiques won't start until after the winner is announced. Not that there's any real reason to wait, but the impression I get is that those who would critique haven't yet read everything.

I think we should stop thinking in terms of a "winner" in an exercise like this. That only leads to the cheating and negative voting we've seen here that I thought we were trying to avoid from the behavior of the rest of the board. I think we should be looking in terms of what fellow writers thought went well and what didn't with the requirements given--and that, potentially then, everyone could win--or lose--or something in between that doesn't need to be pinned down anywhere except in the mind of the author looking for tidbits of critique that can help them with future writing.

I, for one, don't need another "I want to look like I'm a winner and you're a loser no matter what I have to do to achieve that" contest on Literotica.

 

[slyc_willie]

We could call it whatever we want, but any kind of challenge is always going to have the element of competition. With, so far, only one exception to the friendly spirit of this exercise, I'd say we're doing pretty well at keeping things amiable.

 

[damppanties]

We could call it whatever we want, but any kind of challenge is always going to have the element of competition. With, so far, only one exception to the friendly spirit of this exercise, I'd say we're doing pretty well at keeping things amiable.

In earlier challenges in the AH (and some in the poetry forum still) there were anonymous contests where the winner was decided by a vote from the authors from the AH. Would that be something that fawc could turn into? After the stories are posted, there could be a voting thread (with a poll) where authors could vote for their favorites and the 'winner' could be decided by a vote that way rather than the manipulations of reader voting.

Just floating it out to see what you all think.

 

[slyc_willie]

In earlier challenges in the AH (and some in the poetry forum still) there were anonymous contests where the winner was decided by a vote from the authors from the AH. Would that be something that fawc could turn into? After the stories are posted, there could be a voting thread (with a poll) where authors could vote for their favorites and the 'winner' could be decided by a vote that way rather than the manipulations of reader voting.

Just floating it out to see what you all think.

I've been thinking about something like that as well. The problem with a voting poll is the same problem with regular voting; all someone has to do to manipulate the voting is log in on an alt. Unlike the regular voting, however, those votes can't be swept.

I've been toying with the idea of going to some outside source, like a panel of judges. Haven't looked into that too closely, though.

 

[damppanties]

I've been thinking about something like that as well. The problem with a voting poll is the same problem with regular voting; all someone has to do to manipulate the voting is log in on an alt. Unlike the regular voting, however, those votes can't be swept.

I've been toying with the idea of going to some outside source, like a panel of judges. Haven't looked into that too closely, though.

That can be overcome with making the poll public and simply weeding out the people who are alts.

 

[sr71plt]

I've been toying with the idea of going to some outside source, like a panel of judges. Haven't looked into that too closely, though.

I wouldn't mind blind judging (as one of, say, three) one and not entering that one. I'll bet a few others here would be willing to do that too.

 

[MarieWriter]

I've been toying with the idea of going to some outside source, like a panel of judges. Haven't looked into that too closely, though.[/QUOTE]

I like that idea- A panel would be interesting, but the stories would still have to be anonymous of course.

 

[sr71plt]

That can be overcome with making the poll public and simply weeding out the people who are alts.

Or it can be restricted to those entered in the exercise and just sent to a central person, collated, and announced in the aggregate. But I still think it would be a contest of "one" winner then and that that shouldn't be the focus of such an exercise as this.

 

[slyc_willie]

That can be overcome with making the poll public and simply weeding out the people who are alts.

I guess I didn't know how polls worked. I always assumed no one could see who voted. But if it can be made public, that might actually be a more viable option.

 

[_Lynn_]

I wouldn't mind blind judging (as one of, say, three) one and not entering that one. I'll bet a few others here would be willing to do that too.

I don't know if I have the required qualifications, but I'm willing.

 

[slyc_willie]

Or it can be restricted to those entered in the exercise and just sent to a central person, collated, and announced in the aggregate. But I still think it would be a contest of "one" winner then and that that shouldn't be the focus of such an exercise as this.

I appreciate your position, but I think there's always going to be that element of competition regardless.

 

[damppanties]

Or it can be restricted to those entered in the exercise and just sent to a central person, collated, and announced in the aggregate. But I still think it would be a contest of "one" winner then and that that shouldn't be the focus of such an exercise as this.

I get that it shouldn't be the focus but I think it's one of the draws of such a thing as FAWCs. I'm not sure we would have the numbers we do if it wasn't for the contest aspect, sadly.

Restricting it to people in the exercise would be a little for us people who don't really write much and would not be able to enter each fawc but are still interested enough in the exercise to be a part of it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

WILLIE WANKER?

Why doncha organize a panel of competent judges, and let them score the next FUCQ competition? PILOT can be the East German judge.

 

[slyc_willie]

I wouldn't mind blind judging (as one of, say, three) one and not entering that one. I'll bet a few others here would be willing to do that too.

I don't know if I have the required qualifications, but I'm willing.

The selection of judges would be tricky, I think. They would have to be recognized as being "qualified" in some way and viewed by the majority to be impartial.

 

[damppanties]

I guess I didn't know how polls worked. I always assumed no one could see who voted. But if it can be made public, that might actually be a more viable option.

Yep. Polls can be made public.

ETA: Here's a poll that's public and with multiple choice options: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=557588. You can click on the "view poll results" link to view who voted for what.

 

[MarieWriter]

The selection of judges would be tricky, I think. They would have to be recognized as being "qualified" in some way and viewed by the majority to be impartial.

I would volunteer to do it. It might be interesting indeed. But I think to be righteous there would need to be some written criteria for the judges. Has to be something more than personal likes/dislikes.

 

[sr71plt]

The selection of judges would be tricky, I think. They would have to be recognized as being "qualified" in some way and viewed by the majority to be impartial.

Blind judging would ipso facto be impartial--assuming contestants didn't leak what they wrote. The judges could also not be identified until judging was complete (if ever).

Anyone so suspicious about that--and focused on winning--that they wanted to make waves could just not enter.

Or you could go with people who write erotica but don't post to Literotica much if at all anymore--again with blind entries--folks like Selena Kitt and Dr. M.

I wrote reviews on a contest several years ago, using a revealed formula. When I'm done working on what I'm working on now, I'll go pull that up and let everyone see it as an openly established judging criteria. It's point based. With three judges, the points could just all be totaled for a ranking breakout.

 

[patientlee]

We could call it whatever we want, but any kind of challenge is always going to have the element of competition. With, so far, only one exception to the friendly spirit of this exercise, I'd say we're doing pretty well at keeping things amiable.

Maybe the "winner" could be the person who matches the most authors to stories. ;-)

 

[sr71plt]

Maybe the "winner" could be the person who matches the most authors to stories. ;-)

That would be fine--the usual American Idol system approach. It has the added benefit of having nothing to do with writing ability.

 

[MarieWriter]

That would be fine--the usual American Idol system approach. It has the added benefit of having nothing to do with writing ability.

LOL That's too funny

 

[soflabbwlvr]

The selection of judges would be tricky, I think. They would have to be recognized as being "qualified" in some way and viewed by the majority to be impartial.

Here's what you do. Allow all participants to nominate three Lit authors as judges. Post the list, and then allow all participants to strike one person from the list--no reason has to be given. From the remaining pool, contact the first three authors and see if they're interested. Keep going down the list until you have three 'yes' answers.