Diary of the Month Rule Discusion

[foolinc]

At this point I almost wish we could do a new poll. I think we should have all discussed this first and then voted, this is AMERICA dammit, we talk for months before we decide on ****. Ok so before hitting submit I realize not all of you may follow the American format of talking for months and then doing something.....however you should look how great of shape we're in

 

So who are we voting to become our reps, so they can debate and vote on whether or not to create a committee to look into the problem?

[CQI13]

I don't think separating top tier is too elitist. That way you can make sure that OTHER people get recognized by not going up against them at first. And I don't mean everything on DOTY should be split that way. Simply the DIARY as a whole (not match/promo/character/etc). Or leave it as it is. Since someone will always complain, stick with what's worked right?

[Stennick]

So who are we voting to become our reps, so they can debate and vote on whether or not to create a committee to look into the problem?

 

EXACTLY!

[praguepride]

I would disagree. You opened up a poll and got honest answers.

 

The few of us who dont' shut up have dragged on the discussion playing devil's advocate or just plain butting heads, but it's clear that 26 different people feel that DotM should have higher requirements.

 

I feel like DotM should be something you strive for, not just "everyone who's ever made a diary ever gets nominated."

 

Here's some brainstorm ideas. I haven't really thought about them for too long nor am I advocating that all of these be implemented IMMEDIATELY but just throwing them out there and seeing if any stick

 

1) Make it Diary of the Month, not Months (singular, not plural). You can win DotM once a year. You can make a list at the top

 

January - January Winner

Feb - etc. etc.

 

We'd know that getting January or Feb would be a bit more prestigious then November or December just because more people have been "disqualified" by then, but the point is that you A) will be forced to nominate and recognize newcomers and B) give even frequent DotM winners something to strive for. It would end up being a "top 12" ranking but as long as people play it cool, I don't think this would cause too much mayhem. You could supplement this by taking away the posting requirements per se, just that it be an active diary. So as long as they have posted SOMETHING meaningful that month (show, backstage report, storyline...whatever) they can qualify.

 

2) The people have spoken, let us listen. 26 people say to make it more strict. Make it a 3 show requirement for a couple months and just see how it goes. If we have a bunch of default or vacant months then we can always change the rules back again.

 

3) Re-vote and just agree to follow the vote no matter how it goes. We've had time to discuss pros and cons, we can revote and just agree that the losing side won't bitch and moan about losing as that's just being a poor sport.

[James Casey]

I suspect that quantity is always going to impress more than quality. With the exception of rare cases like Mark Cuban does DaVE and UPSW:65&Older, few diaries tend to bounce around the first pages for several days after updating. Even an excellent diary update tends to be gone from the front page after 48 hours at the outside.

 

I'm glad that we have the exclusion in place preventing winners from repeating, but further splits/restrictions seem unnecessary. Depending on numbers of votes cast, I could make a point for having just Rookie and Established diary awards - no RW/CV split. It might encourage more people to take a chance on reading a RW diary, and it's not like the winning CV diary gets pinned by Adam any more, so the split seems largely academic. There were 32 votes in the RW category for the March awards, and 38 in the CV category, so that might work...

[CQI13]

I actually like the "Top 12" idea. Rather than automatically disqualify a winner from winning again, how about 1 possible win every 3-4 month period? Then you'd really see who has been consistently good? Granted, it would come down to people taking their vote seriously.

[Stennick]

I don't know an award is an award though. For instance in the NFL if someone has two great months back to back, aren't they rewarded with player of the month two straight months. This all comes down to one thing, the voters being responsible and voting for what they truly believe is the best and not just seeing Nev, or Casey, or Infinity, or J Silver at the top of the list and saying "well I love his diary so he wins". 30 something people voted in here maybe more, if these people truly care about DOTM think I think that we'll see a drastic improvement in the voting. Sometimes all it takes is for people to stand up and say "hey this system isn't working". People realize it would work if they did it right, and they start doing it right.

[Phantom Stranger]

This all comes down to one thing, the voters being responsible and voting for what they truly believe is the best and not just seeing Nev, or Casey, or Infinity, or J Silver at the top of the list and saying "well I love his diary so he wins". 30 something people voted in here maybe more, if these people truly care about DOTM think I think that we'll see a drastic improvement in the voting.

 

This.

[Eisen-verse]

My 2 Cents:

 

I don't know if we should really disqualify someone from winning DOTM again just because they had previously won it before. Yes, it's best to see more than one person winning over time... but... What's not to say someone is putting together "hands down" the best diary on the boards? It may spark some people to continue to "push the bar" so that they can possibly unseed the consistent winner?

 

Then again, picking winners is pretty subjective in this field. Everyone is pouring their hearts out into their work and the only way to really decide who is better is based upon a popularity contest. (Which is understandable.. There is no other way to really gauge the winner). Not a popularity contest as in "I like him more" but more as "I like this persons approach", etc.

 

To be honest, I have no idea how to fix anything here but I just thought I'd put that out there. You want to inspire others to do really well with their Diary, however, you also want to keep it fair for those who are pumping out great diaries consistently. If Bigpapa can constantly pull in great storylines, great write-ups, and deliver something unique consistently.. Then whose to say that he shouldn't be able to via for the DOTM.

 

I think it's great to talk about this though. If there are going to be such thing as the DOTM awards then we should def. make sure that everyone agrees on the premesis of the process. We all love playing this game... We all love writing diaries for it... So, it's best to get all of this nitty gritty out of the way in the beginning under a uniform set of rules (whatever they may be), so that we can get back to the reason we have these awards!

 

Originally Posted by Stennick

This all comes down to one thing, the voters being responsible and voting for what they truly believe is the best and not just seeing Nev, or Casey, or Infinity, or J Silver at the top of the list and saying "well I love his diary so he wins". 30 something people voted in here maybe more, if these people truly care about DOTM think I think that we'll see a drastic improvement in the voting.

 

If this were facebook (because honestly, I spend waaay to much time on it... Keeping me from my "real work") I would have just clicked on the "ilike" option to this post.

[Phantom Stranger]

My 2 Cents:

 

I don't know if we should really disqualify someone from winning DOTM again just because they had previously won it before. Yes, it's best to see more than one person winning over time... but... What's not to say someone is putting together "hands down" the best diary on the boards? It may spark some people to continue to "push the bar" so that they can possibly unseed the consistent winner?

 

I for one am not trying to say that, though.

 

Be nice if we saw more than three names rotate in and out, though.

[Eisen-verse]

I for one am not trying to say that, though.

 

Be nice if we saw more than three names rotate in and out, though.

 

I Totally agree! I'm sorry if it seemed like I was targeting your responses in this forum. Honestly, I haven't read much (but skimmed) of the whole arguement and really just posted something based upon what I thought I had read above. In no way did I come at it from a point of disagreeing with you.

 

Just thought I'd put my 2 cents out there.

 

Cheers.

[Stennick]

My 2 Cents:

If this were facebook (because honestly, I spend waaay to much time on it... Keeping me from my "real work") I would have just clicked on the "ilike" option to this post.

 

Facebook rules....that is all.

[Phantom Stranger]

I Totally agree! I'm sorry if it seemed like I was targeting your responses in this forum. Honestly, I haven't read much (but skimmed) of the whole arguement and really just posted something based upon what I thought I had read above. In no way did I come at it from a point of disagreeing with you.

 

Just thought I'd put my 2 cents out there.

 

Cheers.

 

Yeah... to be honest, at this stage I'm mostly trying to make sure what I've been trying to say is clear.

 

Praguepride's one-win-per-year idea is... interesting. As E-V says, I'm not sure I'd like people blocked from getting multiple awards, but at the same time it'd be nice to see more than a small core win.

[Eisen-verse]

Yeah... to be honest, at this stage I'm mostly trying to make sure what I've been trying to say is clear.

 

Praguepride's one-win-per-year idea is... interesting. As E-V says, I'm not sure I'd like people blocked from getting multiple awards, but at the same time it'd be nice to see more than a small core win.

 

Amen. I totally understand what you're saying Phantom. In the end, I'm sure everyones ideals will be taken into account before a decision is made. I'm not for a "small core" always winning, however, I also would like to see everyone be able to via for the DOTM at the end of every month. Maybe it's more about people reading more than just one or two diaries on these boards and then voting outright for that diary versus getting to know what else is out there. ya know? I know, for myself at least, from here on out.. I plan on trying to follow as many of these diaries as possible so that way I can really make the best out of my vote for who should win.

[praguepride]

To expand upon the "1 DotM a year" idea, keep in mind that this IS seperate from the DotY which is much more prestigious and without restrictions, so to speak.

 

So the DotM is just to recognize "hey, this month XXX did a good job" while the DotY is "Hey, this person has the Best Diary!"

 

DotM should not just be a smaller version of the DotY because then you have pointless redundancy. The same person who wins the DotM award every single month (or every other month) is probably going to win the DotY...what a surprise.

 

However, you COULD make it so the 12 DotM's are auto-nominated into the DotY, with of course the option to nominate others but the point is that DotM would serve as a stepping stone towards the more prestigious "DotY" award. Plus with 12+ options for DotY, at least the people who don't win get the pleasure of being nominated and possibly getting a vote or two when ordinarily they wouldn't have even made it to the DotY to begin with.

[G-Prime]

However, you COULD make it so the 12 DotM's are auto-nominated into the DotY, with of course the option to nominate others but the point is that DotM would serve as a stepping stone towards the more prestigious "DotY" award.

 

They were the year before last.

[mistaken]

I say "shouldn't be considered" because inexplicably the majority is so unbelievably wrong. I don't see any net positive to forcing posters to put up 4 shows a month.

 

But how can you even argue that it doesn't put quantity over quality? It flat out disregards anything with "only" two shows a month.

 

 

 

See this post that "sums it up" classifies a diary that only runs two shows as "intermittently active," which is just an arbitrary and meaningless definition. There are plenty of shows for which two shows a month, plus at least two previews/non-shows, can be considered active, including several diaries of the year and diaries of the month. The second you say "three posts is hard work, two posts is intermittent," you're making a value judgment rewarding low quality, high output diaries, which historically don't win awards just because of high outputs.

 

Seriously, a move like this is one that just alienates these awards to the point that it would completely exclude newcomers from the process entirely. Which is fine, if the goal of the gds diary awards is a bunch of members' only jackets that read DOTM on them. But you can bet I will not even bother looking at DOTM threads as a member too lazy to do anything more than "intermittent" postings.

 

Majority does not rule, but will receive preferential treatment in what I take away from this conversation.

 

It's disqualifying a range because they don't meet quantity standards. A range that has often included diaries by guys like NoNeck, Monkeypox, j-silver and others.

 

I think the analogy to member's only jackets is pretty apt: if anybody wants these awards to just go to the same five guys from now until forever, that's fine. Let's restrict the voting in addition to the nominations.

 

I envy your formatting. That's what drags me down. I just timed myself: 48 minutes to spellcheck and format everything... ugh, why do I make things so complicated

 

I am not looking to disqualify anyone. this springs up because iMac felt like he had snuck in under the wire with Nevermore to take a win DSE had a shot at. the truth being all 3 are great diary writers, and Nevy did not eclipse DSE, inface he came in 3rd of the 3. but I felt it was a conversation worth having. As I may run these awards, but they are OURS, not MINE.

 

My 2 Cents:

 

I don't know if we should really disqualify someone from winning DOTM again just because they had previously won it before. Yes, it's best to see more than one person winning over time... but... What's not to say someone is putting together "hands down" the best diary on the boards? It may spark some people to continue to "push the bar" so that they can possibly unseed the consistent winner?

 

Then again, picking winners is pretty subjective in this field. Everyone is pouring their hearts out into their work and the only way to really decide who is better is based upon a popularity contest. (Which is understandable.. There is no other way to really gauge the winner). Not a popularity contest as in "I like him more" but more as "I like this persons approach", etc.

 

To be honest, I have no idea how to fix anything here but I just thought I'd put that out there. You want to inspire others to do really well with their Diary, however, you also want to keep it fair for those who are pumping out great diaries consistently. If Bigpapa can constantly pull in great storylines, great write-ups, and deliver something unique consistently.. Then whose to say that he shouldn't be able to via for the DOTM.

 

I think it's great to talk about this though. If there are going to be such thing as the DOTM awards then we should def. make sure that everyone agrees on the premesis of the process. We all love playing this game... We all love writing diaries for it... So, it's best to get all of this nitty gritty out of the way in the beginning under a uniform set of rules (whatever they may be), so that we can get back to the reason we have these awards!

 

 

 

If this were facebook (because honestly, I spend waaay to much time on it... Keeping me from my "real work") I would have just clicked on the "ilike" option to this post.

 

The one month cooling off period was probably the most debated part of the original rule set. with both extremes represent here already.

1) no cooling off (Nevy would have racked up a 6 month or better win streak, at one point)

2) no repeat winners (the winners from 8-12 don't get bragging rights even if they deserved them!)

 

I think the on again off again thing works best. but I really do wish votes were based on BEST THIS MONTH, instead of hey that's my favorite diary of all time, I will vote for him, despite him throwing up two shows, way down from his usual 8.

 

And that I guess is where I way in on this, and is my suggestion. if you put out 2 shows a month every month, cool beans, if this was your best month then you deserve DOTM.

 

BUT, if you usually put out 8 shows a month, and this month you put out 2, even if those 2 are up to your usual standards, unless those were two of your best shows ever, you are probably not DOTM, this month.

 

vs you ARE J-SILVER, and you put out nothing for months on end, then you drop 1 much anticipated show that rocks, the house, maybe with just that one show you are DOTM (but don't qualify)

 

Really, I depend on the people nominating and seconding to be standing up and saying, hey this Diary deserves the nod, those were X great shows. if we include segments in conversation, I am still laying it on those doing the nominating. at one point there were committees & beuracruasies involved, I would prefer not to return to that.

 

My personal view I like the way it works, I wish the same handful did not win every month, but that is exactly why Rookie exists. and to be honest for many of us just being nominated is winning!

[Bigpapa42]

I haven't voted, and I'm honestly not entirely certain which is the best direction. I'm not certain that something has to change, but I figured I'd share the thoughts I have after reading of the posts... Sorry if this gets lengthy...

 

Yeah. Why is it a MUST to get DOTM? It's a price for your efforts. Something where you're better than the rest. You can't cry if it changes to three shows a month: that's a reasonable amount IMHO. If you can't put on three shows, you shouldn't win the DOTM, again, IMHO. You need to be active, though I am sure this is being taken on the account at the moment, when people vote.

 

Recognition is important, though. I don't think its why most of us writers post diaries in the first place, but it can sure keep you going at times. DOTM is just a form of recognition, and it can be a thrill to just get that nomination and a few votes. It shows that you work is appreciated, same as getting some positive feedback posted in the diary itself. I see the DOTM as important way to reward the writers in a small manner. To me, getting nominated the first time and getting a few votes was pretty much as thrilling as actually winning it.

 

We've always recognised that there are different approaches to putting your diary together. My shows take about five minutes to format, because they're almost always plain text. BP42 has commented that his shows can take over an hour - that's commitment, even if his update rate is less than mine.

 

Ultimately, I'd say open it up as wide as possible - talent should be recognised and encouraged, and if someone comes up with an amazing show, way ahead of anything anyone else manages, but they've taken all month to prepare it, well, I would have no problem with them winning DOTM.

 

Commitment is a very tough thing to measure. I'd like to think I'm committed to my project, but its also a choice I've made. It normally takes me between 60 to 90 minutes to set up the graphic layout of a show. To copy & paste the graphics, check the Youtube links for music (and update if necessary), all of that. After that, I can start the writing process (not quick either). I can't really complain about all of that process, though, because I do it by choice. I know that I could simplify things in various ways to make the process quicker, but I like the layout and I believe it to be an important aspect to my diary. Does that make me more committed than someone who takes less time (for whatever reason) to set up and possibly even the write the show? I don't know that it does. Especially when you realize that you can't know someone's personal situation. Not everyone has the same amount of personal time to dedicate to something like this.

 

Exactly. You shouldn't be punished for writing only two shows, if that took the writer 6 hours per show and resulted in something excellent.

 

Have to agree with this. But does how long someone took to write and create really factor in? It just comes down to how good the shows are, whether those shows took 15 minutes or 15 hours each.

 

It has the advantage that there's the possibility of people not among the usual winners squeaking one in - I would suggest that Bigpapa might not have got his deserved win this month if James Casey hadn't been ineligible for victory, Tigerkinney hadn't put his weight behind BigP for the new blood factor, AND infinitywpi not been unable to update of late.

 

I would agree with this suggestion completely (except maybe the "deserved" part, but that's subjective). I definitely don't think March was my strongest month for my diary - January probably was and I didn't get the second for the nomination for DOTM. Its just the way things work. But I do think the recognition for diaries comes with time if they deserve them. Your Philly Power Pro is going to get it sooner or later if you continue as you have been, as the quality is there and the recognition is building as well. It takes time to build that, and the right timing for things to come together.

 

So what it all comes down to, I guess, is that I'm really not sure what the "right" move is. I do think the "cooling down" month is probably the best option in that regard. The once a year thing seems too restrictive. But some restrictions are a good thing, I think. Getting rid of the DOTM seems pretty extreme - the recognition can be important, especially to newer writers and newer diaries.

 

As for the minimum number of shows, I really don't know. I can see both sides. What about something like a "soft" minimum? Two shows or three shows or whatever would normally be the minimum, except in certain situations. So in that rare situation where someone comes through with below the minimum but those shows are of simply outstanding quality and therefore cannot be ignored, it takes an extra nomination. Or two. So that its clear enough that the readers recognize it as a unique situation. It seems like a balance...?

[Phantom Stranger]

...Actually, y'know what?

 

Riffing off BigP's last para there:

 

If a diary delivers 3 shows in the month, it is eligible if nominated and seconded.

 

In cases where a diary has been active but not to this minimum, a nomination may be made citing exceptional quality output. If thos nomination receives (say) 3 secondings it is considered that sufficient of the board agress that the output this month was of exceptional quality. Such nominations should only be called for in cases where the nominator believes the diary to have been not only excellent, but stronger than a typical month's output.

[FlameSnoopy]

...Actually, y'know what?

 

Riffing off BigP's last para there:

 

If a diary delivers 3 shows in the month, it is eligible if nominated and seconded.

 

In cases where a diary has been active but not to this minimum, a nomination may be made citing exceptional quality output. If thos nomination receives (say) 3 secondings it is considered that sufficient of the board agress that the output this month was of exceptional quality. Such nominations should only be called for in cases where the nominator believes the diary to have been not only excellent, but stronger than a typical month's output.

 

I like that. That is actually way better than any of the show-per-month rules. I'll change my vote for this.

[Bigpapa42]

...Actually, y'know what?

 

Riffing off BigP's last para there:

 

If a diary delivers 3 shows in the month, it is eligible if nominated and seconded.

 

In cases where a diary has been active but not to this minimum, a nomination may be made citing exceptional quality output. If thos nomination receives (say) 3 secondings it is considered that sufficient of the board agress that the output this month was of exceptional quality. Such nominations should only be called for in cases where the nominator believes the diary to have been not only excellent, but stronger than a typical month's output.

 

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

Those situations with one or two fantastic shows that can't be ignored seems like its going to be a rare exception rather than a common situation, so make a rule exception for it. Acknowledge that its a unique situation. If there is enough support for that exceptional situation, its treated as such.

[G-Prime]

What they said. Can't believe I didn't think of that.

[praguepride]

Maybe you could create a quick and dirty formula

 

# of seconds needed = 4- #of shows outputted that month.

 

So if you dropped just one high quality show, you'd need a total of 4 votes to get onto the DotM (1 nomination + 3 "seconds") while if you put out 7 shows a month (i.e. 1 a week) then you'd just need a nomination and no second. This would reward your dedication and overall productivity. Doesn't mean that you can produce crap and still get nominated, it has to be good enough that someone wants to vote for it, but still it does give the higher productivity people a bit of a break by comparison.

 

So 3 shows a month requires a nomination and a "second"

2 shows a month requires a nomination and 2 "seconds"

1 show a month requires a nomination and 3 "seconds"

 

I like it, it is a fair compromise that balances recognition of quality with recognition of productivity.

[FlameSnoopy]

I still think that people should nominate AND second a diary no matter how many shows they put in one month.

[praguepride]

Eh, that's fine if people swing that way. Then just make it 3+ shows = 1 nom and 1 second.