Panelists Nominations, etc.

[ejshea]

Because it is MORE THAN PLAINLY CLEAR that the topic of whether or not someone can decline a nomination for a DNA is going nowhere fast, and the current policy is unlikely to change, here's a new question:

How is it that it's not considered suspect, not to mention tacky, to have people who either A) serve on the quarterly panel to be nominated or B) are either Ryan or Jolene?

It was brought up on other forums but I think there was much dancing around the real point so I'll just say it here and let you all explain. To clarify:

I think it's EXTREMLY troublesome to some people -- I stress that it IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR EVERYONE -- that Jolene, who serves in a permanent position on the DNA's to be nominated for an award. This may have been explained better earlier and I missed it, but as I understand it, the FINAL results are ONLY seen by Ryan and Jolene. So, if that's an understanding held by others, maybe you could see why Jolene's running smacks of impropriety.

Now this is JUST MY OPINION, but I'm not sure how much respect you hope to maintain for these awards when the people who run them are allowed to accept awards. I believe it was Wendy of Poundy who mentioned at another forum that if you're going to put yourself out there to run such a thing as the DNA's, you should be able to check your ego at the door and disqualify yourself.

You can tell me "how wrong" I am about this, but it's an opinion. You are welcome to differ with me on it, but you're unlikely to sway me much.

Additionally, I think that for the quarterly duration of your service on a panel, anything of yours should be disqualified. For all the same reasons above.

[JulieK]

Originally posted by ejshea This may have been explained better earlier and I missed it, but as I understand it, the FINAL results are ONLY seen by Ryan and Jolene.

Amen to everything you said, Erin.

The quote above is a whole new question, and a good one. Why is it that only Ryan and Jolene are the only ones to see the final results? What's the logic there? Why not the whole panel?

~Julie
http://www.juliek.org/
http://www.smacktalk.org/

[focker]

I'm sure Ryan and Jolene will have perfect justification for it. :D

Now begone, you silly people! They're never going to change anything, though they welcome discussion...

[Mary Hannah]

Y'all, let's not let a legitimate point get sidelined by making it personal. Because the point isn't personal- the issue is that it's problematic for the people who CHOOSE the panelists and are the only people to see the final votes to be eligible for those awards. Even more problematic than panelists being eligible, in my opinion. I don't understand how this isn't a giant conflict of interest- to me, it's the biggest thread to the DNA's credibility.

[focker]

Originally posted by Mary Hannah
Because the point isn't personal- the issue is that it's problematic for the people who CHOOSE the panelists and are the only people to see the final votes to be eligible for those awards.

But it HAS to be personal, because Ryan and Jolene are the only ones who really know what's going on. And until they are honest and open about it, and show the votes and tallies, it can't be any other way. :eek:

It's entirely inappropriate for people in charge of an award to let themselves be included in the honors. But Ryan and Joelene do not care, and no matter how much discussion is put here, they're not going to change it.

:confused:

[pzarquon]

Clearly, the issue is personal for some. I can't help that. I'm glad people are still involved in various discussions, even though some have concluded that things will never change (which is not the case).

As I noted in the original thread (http://www.diarist.net/active/showthread.php?s=&threadid=719), it's more than reasonable - and it used to be a regular practice - for the final votes to be uploaded to the panel area for review, and simply to have a place to keep all those documents. When we didn't, panels would sometimes request them, and this was not a problem. In any case, we will make transparent review of vote tallies standard operating procedure from now on, including for this current panel.

Indeed, counting votes was originally part of the tallyist's responsibilities, and it should be. IIRC it was only because of a couple of tight quarters (time wise given the need to validate voters) that Jolene and I adopted it.

[focker]

Hey, nice question dodging:

Now, try again.

Why do you and Joelene allow yourselves to be nominated?:rolleyes:

[pzarquon]

Sorry, I neglected to respond:Even more problematic than panelists being eligible, in my opinion. I don't understand how this isn't a giant conflict of interest- to me, it's the biggest thread to the DNA's credibility.Again, as noted in the original thread (http://www.diarist.net/active/showthread.php?s=&threadid=719), it seems clear that the existing attempt at safeguards are insufficient, and that panel members should not be eligible for any awards during the quarter in which they serve. All that's left is the logistics of the vote, which I'm not sure is best handled the old way through the Yahoo! Groups poll feature, or here (not "independent" but public and easier to use).

As for my eligibility or that of Jolene, I suspect I don't have an answer that will satisfy anyone. Obviously, eligibility issues across the board were not first and foremost on our minds (our meaning everyone who helped build these awards in the beginning) when the program was designed.

We are also journalers ourselves, and we are active in the community. We do not vote as part of the panel, and if anything our interaction with the panel is generally inadequate. We certainly don't nominate ourselves, both panel finalist votes and final award votes are transparent... on the thankfully few occasions when we've been nominated (as journalers, not award managers), if anything it's happened in spite of ourselves.

To say, of course, that we have no influence - intentional or not - on the outcome of the awards is naieve, and we've been properly taken to task for expressing our personal views on finalists or winners on our own sites. We are sensitive to that now.Why do you and Jolene allow yourselves to be nominated?Because we had failed to specify our ineligiblility... and, er, because you couldn't decline the award? :)

It seems clear we'll be removing the panel from eligiblity. It would make sense that Jolene and I go with them.

[EmilyMildew]

And for that matter, how are there people who don't think that Jolene or Ryan being nominated is a bad idea?

Edited to add:

Ryan, you guys are sensitive to this now? How, exactly, are you being sensitive? I mean, it's not like Jolene could withdraw her name.

[pzarquon]

And for that matter, how are there people who don't think that Jolene or Ryan being nominated is a bad idea?Because we don't nominate ourselves, and we don't vote in the selection of finalists. It's a mystery to me, now more than ever.

[Rob]

Originally posted by pzarquon
Because we don't nominate ourselves, and we don't vote in the selection of finalists. It's a mystery to me, now more than ever.

I think that the point of contention there is what takes place AFTER the finalists are chosen. I know someone's said that already.

[EmilyMildew]

Ryan, when a radio station does a contest that involves someone calling in and telling the radio station what "triskadeskaphobia" is and then getting a CD that they can pick up, or maybe just getting to be on the air, employees AND THEIR FAMILIES are prohibited from entering.

For a stupid radio contest.

So I don't think it's too much for you guys to say to yourselves, "Well, I was nominated six thousand times, and while I am obviously deserving of this prize, I will NOT put my name in as a finalist because that just looks BAD."

I really don't think it matters that you guys don't have anything to do with the final tallys. YOU RUN THIS SHOW.

[pzarquon]

I really don't think it matters that you guys don't have anything to do with the final tallys. YOU RUN THIS SHOW.Point taken. Which is why I said: "It seems clear we'll be removing the panel from eligiblity. It would make sense that Jolene and I go with them."

The question that'll be put to the long silent advisory group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/diarist-awards) will be something like, "Shall finalist selection panel members be made ineligible for the quarter during which they serve, as well as those involved in the administration of the awards?"

[lynda]

Edited because my entire point is moot now that Ryan's said the serving panelists, along with himself and Jolene will not be considered for awards.

[JulieK]

Originally posted by pzarquon We certainly don't nominate ourselves, both panel finalist votes and final award votes are transparent... on the thankfully few occasions when we've been nominated (as journalers, not award managers), if anything it's happened in spite of ourselves.

Ryan, I have a question about this, and just as a disclaimer, I did go and read http://www.diarist.net/awards/process.html first, and it didn't answer my question.

When you say "final award votes are transparent" what do you mean? Because you've already acknowledged in another thread that you and Jolene tally the final votes.

Can you walk us, step by step, through the final vote process? I think clearing up the mystery there would go a long way towards redeeming the reputation of the awards.

After the panel votes, and you and Jolene tally the votes, do you then return with a list that says for Category A, Journal I got 3 votes, Journal II got 4 votes, Journal III got 2 votes, therefore Journal II wins Category A.

What happens?

~Julie
http://www.juliek.org/
http://www.smacktalk.org/

[pzarquon]

Panel votes are done on the list, and while the tallyist keeps track and posts ties to break and the like, every individual panelist could additionally "play along at home."

The final vote tally has been inconsistently public to the panel, as has been noted. Sometimes the tallyist tallies the votes and posts the results, sometimes (most of the time lately) Jolene and I do it. Sometimes the actual vote counts are included (15 for {x}, 25 for {y}, 15 for {z}), sometimes not -- though always when there's a tie (which is fortunately rare).

We were also at one point regularly archiving the final vote files along with all the other databases in the panel file area, but we haven't lately. From now on, as I've said, we'll do that reliably from now on.

[Candyboots]

The question that'll be put to the long silent advisory group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/diarist-awards) will be something like, "Shall finalist selection panel members be made ineligible for the quarter during which they serve, as well as those involved in the administration of the awards?"
So I take it this means that if we really want a say in this, that we should join this group and vote? Or what?

[pzarquon]

Yes.

I assure you, Yahoo! Groups is no one's favorite group-management solution, but (1.) it's where past policy changes were discussed and voted on, (2.) it's independent (as far as vote receiving and counting is concerned), and (3.) it's at least marginally more reliable and better at limiting duplicate/false votes than, say, a Bravenet poll, or one on this forum.

To join the group, send an e-mail to diarist-awards-subscribe@yahoo.com (diarist-awards-subscribe@yahoogroups.com), or visit the group interface on the web (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/diarist-awards). You'll need a Yahoo! ID (freely available, but be careful of those 'e-mail from our partners' offers) to use all the features.

[roghawk]

So moving any discussions from MATH+1 to here was moot because the real decisions are made in a Yahoo group?

Do we need to sign up and make the same arguments over there over the same questions?

[pzarquon]

I invited discussion here because this has always been the "official" forum for the awards. Obviously these awards will still be debated at 3WA, Xeney, MATH+1, Delphi, and who knows where else. You won't get answers as quickly there, though.

And Yahoo! Groups (originally eGroups) was the very first 'discussion' venue for the awards, way back in the day (July 1998, to be exact). There hasn't been much discussion there lately, and I've directed subscribers there here - I think it's good to have discussion here anyway as there is freer access to these boards than to Yahoo! Groups archives.

I'm just defaulting to the Yahoo! "Polls" feature for voting, for the reasons above, but I'm certainly open to suggestions. This forum software has a poll feature, and there are others (Bravenet, Alxnet, etc.).