Diary Awards Discussion Thread

[Boltinho]

<p>Time for me to weigh in:</p><p> </p><p>

If the point of the rookie award is just to seperate out the serial, established writers then can we not change it those who have won DotM and those who havent?</p><p> </p><p>

So it doesnt matter how new the diary is - if you're Angeldelayette then all of your diaries (<img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" />) would go straight up against Eisenverse, jhd1 et al.</p><p> </p><p>

And if you're Angry_punkfan#295 you'll be up against everyone who hasnt won it before.</p><p> </p><p>

If its good enough and regular enough it will get established. It took me a <em>looong</em> time to get feedback and comments and people interested but it didnt happen from blazing ideas and skillful writing. It happened because I wrote a lot of posts.</p><p> </p><p>

On the subject of RW vs Cverse vs other Id keep it as 3 seperate categories. For now whilst weve got enough of each thats not really too much and if one category starts to drop off we just drop it that month. Its easy to adapt and change.</p><p> </p><p>

Best storyline should definitely be kept seperate from best character IMO. People like Zergon develop great stories without doing in character promos whilst others do great detailed work on characters that sometimes dont carry on too far...</p>

[Phantom Stranger]

<p>I'm just gonna ask a question, because I'm having a hard time understanding the reactions here.</p><p> </p><p>

I grok the expanded categories are a way to recognise more people, and create more reasons for people to read diaries they otherwise wouldn't.</p><p> </p><p>

We seem, in the Rookie debate, to be arguing that having more different people win is better.</p><p> </p><p>

Now, that may be the case. If this month Andy writes best, next month Betty, next month Carol, next month Dave...</p><p> </p><p>

But why are we acting on the presumption that it's the case?</p><p> </p><p>

Here's the question:</p><p> </p><p>

<span style="text-decoration:underline;">Is the point of the DOTM to promote excellence in diary writing and support it, or is the point to get more names up there regardless? If the latter, why do a DOTM rather than just Recommended Reads or something?</span></p>

[LoNdOn]

For what it is worth, I think that only HOF'ers should be excluded from Rookie of the Month. It would be a bit too much if you had every single DOTM winner out of contention.

[Rhudipoo]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="The Final Countdown" data-cite="The Final Countdown" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="33794" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> </p><p> This is an interesting idea, and one that several other people have liked as well. It would certainly mean less work for me, which is a definite plus in my book. <img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> But I feel like in order for it to work, it would have to go beyond merely nominating the person--that's what the other three categories are there for, after all. So, modifying your idea a bit: maybe instead of nominating someone for the award and explaining why, you would actually be nominating a particular aspect of someone's work that really jumped out at you that month? For instance: I'm nominating the Death of Hulk Hogan storyline in Rhudipoo's WWE Bizarro (genius, by the way.) Or, I'm nominating the excellent match between Roddy Piper and Tito Santana in Oldschool's WWWF History Re-written. Am I making sense, or does that sound too convoluted?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah that's what I meant, you'd explain why you are nominating the person for the special mention award, maybe because of a character, a great show write up, a storyline, or maybe because they have just worked hard that month, etc. </p><p> </p><p> I think it could be a nice award if done in the right spirit.</p>

[Stennick]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Phantom Stranger" data-cite="Phantom Stranger" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="33794" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'm just gonna ask a question, because I'm having a hard time understanding the reactions here.<p> </p><p> We seem, in the Rookie debate, to be arguing that having more different people win is better.</p><p> </p><p> Now, that may be the case. If this month Andy writes best, next month Betty, next month Carol, next month Dave...</p><p> </p><p> But why are we acting on the presumption that it's the case?</p><p> </p><p> Here's the question:</p><p> </p><p> <span style="text-decoration:underline;">Is the point of the DOTM to promote excellence in diary writing and support it, or is the point to get more names up there regardless? If the latter, why do a DOTM rather than just Recommended Reads or something?</span></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The poitn of DOTM is to have the best writer that month win it I agree with this. However the point of the rookie diary of the month was created for the lone reason of giving guys a fighting chance to get noticed without feeding them to the sharks. The point of the Rookie of the Month was to give a new writer a chance to get his name out there and get recognized for his skill. It defeats the purpose of having it be for new writers if we have James Casey, Phantam Stranger, Eisen Verse, No Neck and Nevermore all nominated. (I realize none of them can be nominated for rookie but the point is the same) very few if anyone is going to read ROHrulz12's diary compared to those that have a built in following already.</p><p> </p><p> I also agree that the special mention should be "I'm special mentioing Arwink's introduction of Frankie Future into his HGC diary". And not just a "a special mention for Arwinks HGC diary". </p><p> </p><p> I also agree with Amp. I don't remember anyone that is nominated but I remember several who win rookie of the month. Its winning that gets you noticed. Nobody remembers fourth place in the ROTM voting but if the guy gets the support of the board enough to win the thing then yes others will take notice. So no its not enough to be nominated. Who's going to pay attention to a new guy and read his stuff when they see all these heavy hitters. They'll see Arwink's name up there and say "hey I know this writer, I like his stuff I'm going with him." So no its not enough to just be nominated for ROTM and I think thats why its important to keep ROTM for people who have not yet found success at DOTM. </p><p> </p><p> I guess I'm a bit OCD but I'd rather have a mod, c verse and real world nomination rather than mod/cverse nomination but I think at this time the biggest issue is figuring out rookie of the month and how its to be dealt with.</p>

[sebsplex]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="33794" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I also agree with Amp. I don't remember anyone that is nominated but I remember several who win rookie of the month. Its winning that gets you noticed. Nobody remembers fourth place in the ROTM voting but if the guy gets the support of the board enough to win the thing then yes others will take notice. So no its not enough to be nominated. Who's going to pay attention to a new guy and read his stuff when they see all these heavy hitters. They'll see Arwink's name up there and say "hey I know this writer, I like his stuff I'm going with him." So no its not enough to just be nominated for ROTM and I think thats why its important to keep ROTM for people who have not yet found success at DOTM. </div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I can't say I 100% disagree with you Stennick because there are valid points here, but I think you're both underestimating the benefits of a writer simply having their diary mentioned (and linked) outside of the diary's own thread and over-estimating the value winning DOTM actually has.</p><p> </p><p> I'm of the opposite view that for the most part, I don't think I could name a ROTM winning diary from the top of my head, however I can remember a number of diaries I've found through the voting process and the ROTM nominations. Even when I've been nominated in the past, I've kinda zoned out of the voting stage because the actual prize isn't of great concern to me. I don't mean that in a way to belittle all the efforts that go into running and organising these much-appreciated contests, but the "awards" themselves are really just a token of recognition from fellow GDS members, they're not life-defining accolades and I'm not convinced there are a great deal of writers who are writing diaries with the sole reason of pursuing them. Basically the writers nominated benefit from the process, not just the outcome.</p><p> </p><p> In general for the problem of established writers, I think it's also worth noting that whilst they have in-built audiences in some respects, they also have in-built detractors or members who simply don't follow their work because they know from past experience that their diaries aren't a style/format/perspective/whatever that appeals to them. I'm not sure whether this balances out as a whole, but from the perspective of a newer writer or forum member, I'd personally rather compete or be judged against a competitive field and (should I get obliterated in the voting) have a standard to aspire to - than simply walk into a weak, watered down field and be feted with ROTM. I'm not sure exactly what the answer is here, but I believe finding some sort of balance is the key.</p><p> </p><p> As for the awards themselves, these would be my favoured...</p><p> </p><p> C-Verse DOTM</p><p> Non-C-Verse DOTM (inc RW, other fictional mods, etc)</p><p> Rookie DOTM</p><p> Special Mention / Memorable Moment (to cover angles, matches, storylines, promos or anything else in this vein).</p><p> </p><p> Ultimately though, the focus should be on helping writers get their work noticed, followed and commented on by their fellow peers and whichever way you go, I think that's going to be achieved.</p>

[toeachtheirown]

<p>I think it should be real world, other, and C Verse thats just what I think.</p><p> </p><p>

I don't know what to do about rookie diary of the month. I think that on one hand it should be the best of the best but on the other it should be for guys trying to get their name out there and not guys that have been known for years. </p><p> </p><p>

TFC you're doing an awesome job with this thing and I'm glad you're being so proactive about the whole thing. I see you're a dodgers fan being from New York I'm going to assume you like the Dodgers because they were the BROOKLYN Dodgers <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[ampulator]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="sebsplex" data-cite="sebsplex" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="33794" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I can't say I 100% disagree with you Stennick because there are valid points here, but I think you're both underestimating the benefits of a writer simply having their diary mentioned (and linked) outside of the diary's own thread and over-estimating the value winning DOTM actually has.<p> </p><p> I'm of the opposite view that for the most part, I don't think I could name a ROTM winning diary from the top of my head, however I can remember a number of diaries I've found through the voting process and the ROTM nominations. Even when I've been nominated in the past, I've kinda zoned out of the voting stage because the actual prize isn't of great concern to me. I don't mean that in a way to belittle all the efforts that go into running and organising these much-appreciated contests, but the "awards" themselves are really just a token of recognition from fellow GDS members, they're not life-defining accolades and I'm not convinced there are a great deal of writers who are writing diaries with the sole reason of pursuing them. Basically the writers nominated benefit from the process, not just the outcome.</p><p> </p><p> In general for the problem of established writers, I think it's also worth noting that whilst they have in-built audiences in some respects, they also have in-built detractors or members who simply don't follow their work because they know from past experience that their diaries aren't a style/format/perspective/whatever that appeals to them. I'm not sure whether this balances out as a whole, but from the perspective of a newer writer or forum member, I'd personally rather compete or be judged against a competitive field and (should I get obliterated in the voting) have a standard to aspire to - than simply walk into a weak, watered down field and be feted with ROTM. I'm not sure exactly what the answer is here, but I believe finding some sort of balance is the key.</p></div></blockquote><p> And I think you are overestimating the value of merely being nominated. Regardless of whether you think winning first in ROTM is overvalued, merely being nominated is moreso. How many second place winners went onto winning the first place the next time? How many third place went onto win the second or third place next time? And how many fourth places went on to win the first, second or third place next time? Not many.</p><p> </p><p> As for winning ROTM being overvalued, so what? Every little thing for genuine Rookies can help. It's hard enough as it is. Even if you say people prefer to stick with certain writers, so what? People stick more with Cverse, does that mean we should ignore RWverse diaries? People stick more with diaries based on Bigger Promotions, therefore, we should ignore diaries on Smaller Promotions? It's self-defeating.</p>

[Phantom Stranger]

I have, at this point, two basic thoughts.

 

• I still honestly look at the argument for limiting access to the rookie category further and think that, in the first place, it will mean some months there'll be a very tiny field and that, in the second case, it'll suck to be a writer who's returning with a new diary any time in the 11 months after their victory. (1 year? SERIOUSLY?). Frankly, it smacks of a movement to emphasise new names over quality - and that strikes me as, you know, not an award.
  
• I do not believe I could take a standout Tigerkinney match and a standout JC promo and a brilliant smwilliams storyline and say 'I need to give my vote to one of these, which is best?' as those three things are worlds apart. Match, promo, storyline - they don't compare, they're entirely not the same thing, and they don't have much in common to measure the merit of.
  

 

Only one of those has relevance to me as a writer. Make of it what you will, call me an elitist, call me whatever - but frankly, it strikes me that awards lose their relevance if they can't be said to be given to someone with a real claim to be the best.

[ampulator]

I have, at this point, two basic thoughts.

 

[*]I still honestly look at the argument for limiting access to the rookie category further and think that, in the first place, it will mean some months there'll be a very tiny field and that, in the second case, it'll suck to be a writer who's returning with a new diary any time in the 11 months after their victory. (1 year? SERIOUSLY?). Frankly, it smacks of a movement to emphasise new names over quality - and that strikes me as, you know, not an award.

Alright then, it could be 1 month. 2 Months. 3 Months. 4 months. 6 Months. Doesn't matter. It's principle behind actual workings that matter-we can argue about the actual limit later. Point is, there has to be some sort limit. We need to give actual rookies chances to win the Rookie Nomination.

[Phantom Stranger]

Alright then, it could be 1 month. 2 Months. 3 Months. 4 months. 6 Months. Doesn't matter. It's principle behind actual workings that matter-we can argue about the actual limit later. Point is, there has to be some sort limit. We need to give actual rookies chances to win the Rookie Nomination.

 

Then don't make a weird arbitrary limit that needs lookups.

 

Rookie DOTM: If you have never written a diary before this, you're eligible.

[ampulator]

Then don't make a weird arbitrary limit that needs lookups.

 

Rookie DOTM: If you have never written a diary before this, you're eligible.

Except that was my one my original ideas. But if you ask me, people would think THAT'S too harsh. In fact, you implied having an one-year is too harsh. How's having a permanent ban any less harsh?

 

Quoting myself:

 

I second these ideas. I think it's fair that anyone that won the DOTM shouldn't be allowed to win Rookie again. Or at least, if they won the DOTM that year, they must wait until next year to be permitted to do Rookie again. The special mention gimmick is a great idea to condense these categories.

[data]

Ok i'm not going to even pretend to of read everyones posts

 

But seriously, how the hell can someone who has won diary of the month win rookie of the month, anyone who is suggesting that, tbh should go google define rookie, and realize how stupid your suggestion is.

 

From how i see it, we have lots of new diaries every month, have diary of the month for every diary here, and New Diary of the Month, where only diaries started in the last month can be voted for, thats it.

[ampulator]

To help you understand the situation better, here's how it stands. Current DOTM Winners are permitted to win Rookies for any new diaries. It's what are debating right now.

 

As for your idea of the New Diary of Month... it's basically what a Rookie of the Month is right now.

[Stennick]

Ok i'm not going to even pretend to of read everyones posts

 

But seriously, how the hell can someone who has won diary of the month win rookie of the month, anyone who is suggesting that, tbh should go google define rookie, and realize how stupid your suggestion is.

 

From how i see it, we have lots of new diaries every month, have diary of the month for every diary here, and New Diary of the Month, where only diaries started in the last month can be voted for, thats it.

 

Because its rookie DIARY of the month not rookie WRITER of the month. What if you have a diary, you win DOTM and then a few months later you stop the diary and a few months later you start a new diary. Under the current system that new diary would be eligible to win rookie diary of the month.

 

Thats how. Then again if you would have went back and read all the posts that you weren't going to pretend to read you might have been able to establish this information for yourself

[BHK1978]

Here's the question:

 

Is the point of the DOTM to promote excellence in diary writing and support it, or is the point to get more names up there regardless?

 

 

Is that really what the diary of the month is though? My opinion of the diary of the month is it is nothing more than popularity contest and to an extent it is somewhat political as well. It can very much be who you are friendly with that gets you a win. How many times have we witnessed a known writer (like yourself) endorse a writer and all of a sudden said writer wins diary of the month?

 

Did said writer win on the merits of his or her own, or did they win because the right person endorses him or her?

 

There are plenty of diaries writers that should have won DOTM by now but they have not (I think both arwink and Codey are perfect examples of great writers who should have won but never have or at least I do not think they have won.) even when they had the best shows of the month.

 

In regards to Rookie DOTM, how many people actually read new writers? You yourself have said in the past that you do not bother reading Rookie diaries until they have been around for a couple of months (which means that they are no longer Rookies.) and there are a lot of readers like you on here that will not give a rookie diary a chance unless it is written by a proven writer. So if said proven writer is not in the HOF and they are nominated for ROTM then of course they will win because more people would read their stuff.

 

Does it mean they are the best? No not really it just means that they are getting recognized for their past works.

 

Little bit off topic but something I found funny, I remember a couple of months ago where there was a writer who yelled at new writer after the new writer started up his/her fifth diary in as many weeks. This writer said something along the lines of, “You start and stop diaries too much for my liking, you should just stick to doing one.” I went into the writer that complained profile and I saw that he/she had already written around 12 over the course of a year. Just thought that was funny.

[ampulator]

There are plenty of diaries writers that should have won DOTM by now but they have not (I think both arwink and Codey are perfect examples of great writers who should have won but never have or at least I do not think they have won.) even when they had the best shows of the month.

Arwink? Well, it's kind of hard to vote for him... his lack of updates, while forgiveable (and quite common), stalls his momentum.

 

In regards to Rookie DOTM, how many people actually read new writers? You yourself have said in the past that you do not bother reading Rookie diaries until they have been around for a couple of months (which means that they are no longer Rookies.) and there are a lot of readers like you on here that will not give a rookie diary a chance unless it is written by a proven writer. So if said proven writer is not in the HOF and they are nominated for ROTM then of course they will win because more people would read their stuff.

 

Can't have said it better myself. While I don't read many rookies, I think they deserve a category of their own to promote their work... without seasoned veterans stealing their thunder.

 

Little bit off topic but something I found funny, I remember a couple of months ago where there was a writer who yelled at new writer after the new writer started up his/her fifth diary in as many weeks. This writer said something along the lines of, “You start and stop diaries too much for my liking, you should just stick to doing one.” I went into the writer that complained profile and I saw that he/she had already written around 12 over the course of a year. Just thought that was funny.

I thought you were talking about me here, except I have no diaries yet.

[BHK1978]

I thought you were talking about me here, except I have no diaries yet.

 

I was wrong on the number it was only five in the span of the year but I still think that is a lot.

[Phantom Stranger]

You yourself have said in the past that you do not bother reading Rookie diaries until they have been around for a couple of months (which means that they are no longer Rookies.)

 

Actually, no, I haven't said that. (And if you check, say, Codey's first diary, or Tiberious4's first diary more recently, you'll see posts from me very early on).

 

I don't read diaries by writers whose diaries fizzle out quickly until the new diary's amassed a hundred posts, because I don't want to get keen on something that's just going to vanish.

 

...

 

Bottom line: If you assume it's a popularity contest, then if you allow extant writers (like, say, a new angeldelayette diary) to run, the newcomers will almost never win.

 

I don't play politics. I've nominated writers because I like their stuff. I mention specific writers - as in my more recent post - because they're examples of what I'm thinking of that I expect people to know.

 

Am I popular? Yes. Has my current diary been going for three years? Yes. Was its predecessor a year long? Yes. Was I popular in the three diaries I did before then, stretching back to 2007? No.

 

Has codey built a following by early in his first diary? Yes. Does that mean he played politics? Nope. Does it mean people pointing other readers at him was playing politics on his behalf? Not in my case - I found something fun and wanted other people to see it, and frankly, the idea that that can only be political on my behalf implies something about who I am that I don't much like.

 

Am I jealous of codey's early follow? No, no more than I was of Self's explosive popularity with FCK - they earned it. My first diary was fun to do but I imagine awful to read.

 

Left to our own devices, we as a community have consistently voted a set of regular winners while recognising standout months from others. That's something you have to bear in mind. I don't think that's a popularity thing except in the unavoidable fact that the more people who read your diary, the more people are in a position to decide to vote for it.

 

And that won't ever change.

[Stennick]

I don't know if anyone has thanked TFC for creating this thread and allowing everyone to have an input no matter how many diaries you've read, posted in or created or even how long you've been on the board so thanks.

 

I think we have gotten some good ideas and voiced some good opinions. That being said its starting to get on that fine line. With talk of eliteism, and politics and popularity contests.

 

Every award in the history of awards was based more than not on popularity. Academy Awards, Grammys, and sadly even our own DOTM. I have said before that guys like my boy ajcrible and Codey and others that are escaping my thoughts right now. Even guys like Monkeypox who are still talked about to this day despite not being on these boards in four years or so. We have seen several people become "hits" on this board without any prior success.

 

I'd rather we stick to the issues at hand which at this point is mostly Rookie of the Month. I'm still of the belief that rookie of the month should be for writers that haven't gotten a big break yet. Rookie of the month was designed to give these rookie diaries a chance to get a following before they went up against the big dogs. I'd say if you have won DOTM you have that following that rookie of the month was designed to give you and it would be time to give someone else a chance to get that "rub". Honestly I think that saying "I don't want to vote on a shallow pool of talent" is silly. There are TONS of diaries here that fizzle out in a month that have the potential to be great. Why do they fizzle out? I have no idea maybe the writer, maybe the lack of support its hard to say but maybe if they got nominated, recognized it might have made them push forward a bit more. If a year is too harsh lets do six months. I believe there should be a long period of time that a DOTM winner cannot win ROTM and I also believe there are dozens of guys that aren't posting in here that are posted diaries that are kind of being called the shallow end of the pool without their talent ever being looked at because the current system we have did the minimal to encourage us to seek out new nominations.

[arwink]

I kinda hesitate to get involved in the debate, since my engagement with the DotM process is largely one of remembering to vote every second month or so, but I figure I'd throw out the suggestion of rebranding the Rookie of the Month in some way.

 

If this thread's shown nothing else, it's that Rookie is a really loaded term that's being interpreted in a lot of different ways. If it's an award about recognising new dynasties, rather than new writers, then it's double confusing given that rookie is a term usually applied to a beginner rather than a beginning.

 

Damned if I knew what a good alternative would be, though. Fresh Start? On the Rise? Ones to Watch? Even Data's suggestion of New Diary of the Month clears up all sorts of ambiguity.

[The Final Countdown]

I have to say, I had not anticipated this level of debate over the Rookie category. I had no idea it was this big an issue for some people, but I'm glad we're getting it out there. That's kind of the point of this thread, after all.

 

As for my thoughts on it: as I said earlier, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of instituting some kind of limit of eligibility beyond the current "Hall of Famers are excluded" rule, but I'm still not sure that there's an easy way to enforce it.

 

I'm also not sure if winning a DOTM award once should automatically exclude someone from ever being nominated again. If someone who won a DOTM award once in, say, 2008 resurfaced today with a brand new diary, would they really be so established that they should be considered "above" the Rookie category? Perhaps it depends on your definition of rookie, and whether you think the award should be about new writers or new diaries. I guess the "ineligible for one year" idea would be doable, but I'm still very much undecided about this whole thing.

 

TFC you're doing an awesome job with this thing and I'm glad you're being so proactive about the whole thing. I see you're a dodgers fan being from New York I'm going to assume you like the Dodgers because they were the BROOKLYN Dodgers

Thanks. While I have my own ideas and opinions on certain issues, I felt that hearing from the community itself could only be beneficial. I'm pleasantly surprised with the level of response, though. Lots of people, Hall of Famers, newcomers and strictly readers alike, are voicing their opinions, which is exactly what I was hoping for. The feedback you guys have given is going to have a definite impact on the look of the DOTM this month.

 

As for your second point: feel free to assume that. You'd be wrong, but feel free.

 

I don't know if anyone has thanked TFC for creating this thread and allowing everyone to have an input no matter how many diaries you've read, posted in or created or even how long you've been on the board so thanks.

Daww.

 

I definitely always want to hear what everyone in the community thinks, both now and for as long as I run things. This thread has already changed my mind and/or influenced my opinion on several different things.

 

I think we have gotten some good ideas and voiced some good opinions. That being said its starting to get on that fine line. With talk of eliteism, and politics and popularity contests.

Agree. I don't think we've quite crossed the line into sniping and personal insults yet, but I can see the potential for that to start happening. Though the popularity contest thing is pretty valid, to be honest, as you detailed later in your post.

 

I'd rather we stick to the issues at hand which at this point is mostly Rookie of the Month. I'm still of the belief that rookie of the month should be for writers that haven't gotten a big break yet. Rookie of the month was designed to give these rookie diaries a chance to get a following before they went up against the big dogs. I'd say if you have won DOTM you have that following that rookie of the month was designed to give you and it would be time to give someone else a chance to get that "rub". Honestly I think that saying "I don't want to vote on a shallow pool of talent" is silly. There are TONS of diaries here that fizzle out in a month that have the potential to be great. Why do they fizzle out? I have no idea maybe the writer, maybe the lack of support its hard to say but maybe if they got nominated, recognized it might have made them push forward a bit more. If a year is too harsh lets do six months. I believe there should be a long period of time that a DOTM winner cannot win ROTM and I also believe there are dozens of guys that aren't posting in here that are posted diaries that are kind of being called the shallow end of the pool without their talent ever being looked at because the current system we have did the minimal to encourage us to seek out new nominations.

This is interesting. Thinking back to when my diary was still relatively new, I can remember several times when I was pretty close to pulling the plug for several reasons, one of them being lackluster reader reaction. It could be pretty discouraging, to work hard on a show or a storyline and see minimal response. It even happened with my 1st Anniversary show, which happened several real-time months after I'd started. I think I'd even won a DOTM award by then. It was a show I'd been building up to for a long time, and yet, only two people submitted predictions/comments for it. That was pretty disappointing for me, and those two predictors basically had to talk me into continuing (thanks, Celt and Oldschool!)

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that one reason some diaries may quickly fizzle out is lack of response or lack of recognition, and if there's a way we can modify the Rookie DOTM award to alleviate that somewhat, great. (I know that's basically what you already said, but I guess I just wanted to use my own experience as an example.)

 

Your 6 months suggestion is intriguing too. I think a permanent ban might be excessive, and some might say the same about one year. Six months could be a good compromise.

[BHK1978]

Actually, no, I haven't said that. (And if you check, say, Codey's first diary, or Tiberious4's first diary more recently, you'll see posts from me very early on).

 

This is what I was talking about, maybe I am taking it out of context:

 

True, and they're a rarity. And it's those burns that mean I generally don't look at a diary by an unknown quantity if it can't muster, roughly speaking, 70-80 posts.

 

See, I have no interest in getting invested in something that's gonna fizzle before it gets going. If it gets going, if there are some cool moments and payoffs, then yeah, I'll be back for a project next time even if that one was short. But too many writers start, then fizzle.

 

It seems like you were saying because you have been burnt in the past by new writers that you generally do check out other new writers.

 

I don't play politics. I've nominated writers because I like their stuff. I mention specific writers - as in my more recent post - because they're examples of what I'm thinking of that I expect people to know.[/Quote]

 

Sorry I was just using your name as an example, I did not mean to say you yourself play politics, which is why I said a writer like yourself. Really you chould swap any known name in there but because I was addressing what you said in my quote I chose to use your name as the example.

 

 

Has codey built a following by early in his first diary? Yes. Does that mean he played politics? Nope. Does it mean people pointing other readers at him was playing politics on his behalf?[/Quote]

No I agree with you codey built his audience and as I said above I was not saying in any way that codey has been playing politics or that you were pushing his name. Once again I was using him as an example of a writer who constantly puts out quality stuff and yet does not seem to be getting the recognition he deserves by winning a DOTM.

 

Let me be clear if the DOTM is about the best of the best then I think codey should have won it a long time ago. Hey look now I have endorsed a writer, too bad my name does not carry any weight.

[Phantom Stranger]

Sorry I was just using your name as an example, I did not mean to say you yourself play politics, which is why I said a writer like yourself. Really you chould swap any known name in there but because I was addressing what you said in my quote I chose to use your name as the example.

 

Ok, that's fair. But here we come to the next step of the question.

 

Would you say someone IS playing politics? If not, is it *purely* about popularity?

 

And I don't see how you eliminate popularity from the equation entirely. If fifteen people read Writer A's diary, but only three read Writer B's, then Writer B can persuade 100% of his fanbase to vote for him and Writer A only needs a little over 25% to cement the win.

 

Winning a DOTM or a RDOTM is going to go to someone who's already built the fanbase. Nominations might help build it; certainly a win might cause someone to check a diary out but they must already have a following.

[mistaken]

*the following is a joke to lighten the mood*

 

I want the ability to sway the vote.

 

next month vote mistaken!

 

(for full disclosure I am 100% sure I will have no valid diary to vote for, please use your write in vote any way )