How is it any different?

[English Lady]

You know, much as I hate to open this can of worms again - this came to me last night after I left.

About a month ago, The Earl did the AH Year's Awards or some such. With categories. And winners. Quite a limited number of winners if memory serves. And we all laughed, and a good time was had by all.

Why on earth is this so much more disturbing? It seems rather unfair on Sack, to be honest.

Shanglan

I think this was because it was one persons view and it was about "beauty"

I am not sure why that makes a difference but it does seem too the Earls asked for peoples input and was many different aspects of people and was just as exclusive in many ways.

anyhow, it's happened. it should be left to die a death and people should just watch what they post in future *L*

 

[impressive]

And we all laughed, and a good time was had by all.

Really? You're sure about that?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Really? You're sure about that?

Damnit! Now I'm plunged into a pit of epistemological uncertainty.

I hold you personally responsible.



Shanglan

 

[shereads]

Damnit! Now I'm plunged into a pit of epistemological uncertainty.

Is that like an episiotomy? Can it wait until I leave to pick up my cleaning?

Edited to add: Sack doesn't seem terribly traumatized. I felt badly for him last night, which is why I tried to leave here on what you would recognize as a conciliatory note only if you knew me really, really well...



But when I saw his thread this morning and realized he was still convinced that all the fuss was because we wanted him to say we were pretty or talented so we wouldn't feel bad about ourselves, I knew he hadn't heard most of what was said.

 

[impressive]

Damnit! Now I'm plunged into a pit of epistemological uncertainty.

I hold you personally responsible.



Shanglan

As long as you hold me -- personally, even -- I'm content.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Re: oops, someone is not reading closely...

I
Doc M. has said elsewhere he doesn't like this 1,2,3....list business. OK, then to be consistent, if your story wins a contest, and say is #2, you should be embarrassed and mail your check back. Is that what you do, Doctor M.? I don't think so. In a similar manner, some of your stories are near the top of the "top lists". Again,If you are being consistent, the 20 best stories are the most "popular" and imply the remaining thousands are poorly written. Why don't you write to Laurel and request that your stories be taken off the top list, since it so rude, tasteless, and impolite to imply that one person's story could possibly be better than another's?

Personally, I think Doc is just jealous that he isn't as good looking as CarsonShepherd's dog!

Sack

Well, I do feel bad about not being as good looking as Carson’s dog, but I think my ass smells better.

Well, maybe not.

No, but there is a difference between winning a contest in which everyone votes and just being named publicy as someone’s favorite. Having been in a number of contests now in which I watched the voting rather carefully, I realize what a chancy and even random thing winning or placing is. You can be top rated story at the deadline, and two minutes later be in third or fourth place, but you still win because you happened to be on top when Laurel looked. So, while winning is a thrill, it’s good to approach contest results with a good deal of humility and an appreciation for the luck involved.

As I said in another post, there’s also a difference between being judged for something you’ve done, and being judged for something you are. We like to believe we can all moderate and change the former, but we’re more or less stuck with the latter. Contests judge stories; they don’t judge people.

I don’t know. Maybe it’s just me then. Maybe no one else feels bad about these lists and I’m just overly sensitive, but it seems to me that there is such a thing as gentlemanly behavior (as weird as that may seem on the internet), and the first rule of gentlemanly behavior is that you don’t intentionally hurt other people’s feelings.

Having talked this entire topic to death by now, if you still don’t see how publishing a “top list” has to capacity to wound some people, then I don’t think I can explain it to you, and so in your view: no harm, no foul.

In any case, I don’t think Sack was being intentionally malicious or exclusionary, and I apologize if I gave that impression. It’s just that this place can seem like one big family to a lot of us, where we can tease and kid, but it’s not just a family: it’s a public chat room, where non-family members are coming and going and trying to find a place for themselves and participate and be appreciated, and I personally feel that anything that works to exclude people or make them feel like second-class Litizens goes counter to that.

There. I’m done with this. Go about your business. Post what you will.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: oops, someone is not reading closely...

it’s a public chat room, where non-family members are coming and going and trying to find a place for themselves and participate and be appreciated, and I personally feel that anything that works to exclude people or make them feel like second-class Litizens goes counter to that.

If you think I don't know who that "second class" reference was meant to offend, I must be stupider than you think I am.

<runs sobbing from the room>

 

[gauchecritic]

Really? You're sure about that?

Egotistical enough to agree

 

[BlackShanglan]

As long as you hold me -- personally, even -- I'm content.

Finally. An answer that leaves everyone happy.

Shanglan

 

[Kassiana]

Maybe no one else feels bad about these lists and I’m just overly sensitive
--Given the number of people, including myself, who have stated they're a bad idea, I don't think so.

I think they are a bad idea. The only reason I posted in the Litwich one at all was to make an inclusive statement so everyone would feel cared for...but I don't think it worked.

 

[sack]

Thanks, Dr. Mab!

I accept your apology, and you are right the contest votes can change in a heartbeat. But I think my main point was that any list, by its nature is exclusionary. And I think it was pretty obvious from the onset that my lists were not intended to divide and conquer, just rather innocent fun, at least to me. In a broader view, no post/thread/story/poem will please everyone, no matter how carefully worded, so it's probably ridiculous to even try. There are just too many different ages/personalities/opinions at lit. But....perhaps this has been an eye-opener for some, and for that reason my "rants" may have some value....until the next time I try to cram my foot in my mouth, that is!

Sack

 

[shereads]

You know, much as I hate to open this can of worms again - this came to me last night after I left.

Hey look, free worms!

 

[Raging Whoremoans]

Hey look, free worms!

And it looks like the fish are bitin'.

Bonus.

 

[Amy Sweet]

You know, much as I hate to open this can of worms again - this came to me last night after I left.

About a month ago, The Earl did the AH Year's Awards or some such. With categories. And winners. Quite a limited number of winners if memory serves. And we all laughed, and a good time was had by all.

Why on earth is this so much more disturbing? It seems rather unfair on Sack, to be honest.

Shanglan

Thank god I'm not the only one who thinks this...

 

[Amy Sweet]

Is that like an episiotomy? Can it wait until I leave to pick up my cleaning?

Edited to add: Sack doesn't seem terribly traumatized. I felt badly for him last night, which is why I tried to leave here on what you would recognize as a conciliatory note only if you knew me really, really well...



But when I saw his thread this morning and realized he was still convinced that all the fuss was because we wanted him to say we were pretty or talented so we wouldn't feel bad about ourselves, I knew he hadn't heard most of what was said.

Um, I think that the reason he thinks that is because people *have* given that in there explanation as a reason why their feelings were hurt by the list, or why peoples feelings *could* be hurt by such lists or whatever. At least, that is the way that I read many of the explaintions. Perhaps it was more complex than that, but it sure did seem to say that that. And if that's not it- then I still don't get what *is* it. Not that I get it anyway, but people did seem to list that as a reason for the list being upsetting. Either sack and I have misunderstood, or it's what was said, but sack didn't just invent it out of thin air and an enormous ego of some sort.