Locked: People can just make new threads for suggestions / feedback.

If you have any questions, issues, or suggestions for the website, I'll be happy to address them here. (Alternatively, you can open a ticket on the Github repo.)

Hmm, nothing I can really think of Roger.

All the new changes have been excellent. The only thing I can honestly think to say is, why not an on-site forum? It would keep us from having to maneuver back and forth between two sites, and potentially allow toggled semi-anonymous posting for reviews (as in, I'm posting a review, so I toggle anon and it lists me as "Author of $STORYNAME"). I do rather miss that from the chans. I also figure it's probably a heck of a jump, coding-wise.

2675793
Adding simple comments would not be too difficult, and it would be easy to have comments be anonymous for the duration of the event and show the usernames afterwards. Creating a forum as featureful as Fimfiction or a chan would require a lot of work, though.

Just what I posted in the other thread: Print "You may cast your vote only once" just above or below the "Cast Vote" button.

I'm a little torn on allowing anon comments. While I really miss this ability from the chan days—especially in being able to ask for clarification about a critique—there's something kind of elegant about letting the work stand for itself. I know I for one have gotten in trouble in the past for over-explaining my fic during the voting process.

2676648
Seconded.

2676164
Even comments straight on the stories would be great. We could use this place for general discussion before, during and after, and regain the semi-anonymous review functionality. :D

I've changed the public voting poll to work with incremental updates. The displayed form will automatically submit any changes you make to it, and revisiting the page will fill the form in with your current vote. It's still required that you vote on half the stories for any of them to be counted.

Y'oughta add the discussion forum thread into the event page, like you used to with /fic/. :B

3229745
Does this mean there's no "locking in" of votes now? I'm very confused. D:

3233290
Correct. You can update your vote as you please until the votes close. The idea is it makes voting as you read a lot easier, but you can still come back later to smooth things out after reflection.

3233307
wellokaythen! :O Just a bit of a change from usual is all. :D

Looking at the results, I again wish there was a "1 per person" restriction for submissions. Watching Pascoite repeatedly claim multiple top spots kind of just makes me not want to participate in these events anymore

3329752
Even if the restriction were desired, there's nothing except inconvenience stopping him from submitting additional entries under other names. It's not a useful thing to fuss over.

3329818
*Shrugs* If you say so. Will admit to being kind of disappointed

3329818

Well, uh, I'd hope that any combination of the below'd take place if entries were barred to one per person:

-Most people involved in the writeoffs are trustworthy enough to not submit multiple times under alternate names if told not to do so.

-If, at any point, it is discovered that someone submitted multiple times under an alternate name, there'd be repercussions for doing so, pursuant to "One entry per person."

Looking at the website, Pascoite's scored almost as much as the second and third people behind him combined, and more than the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh people combined. This wouldn't seem as anomalous if most of this scoring weren't clearly the result of multiple submissions in various writeoffs, many times taking top spots with multiple stories.

I'm not saying he doesn't deserve those results -- Pasc may very well be a top-running contender here -- but it does make kind of a mockery of the placement and scoring schema if the same higher-level author can put forth multiple submissions and claim multiple high spots/scores. I've actually seen several people go "Eeeeh, not sure it's really worth competing in the writeoffs. Pascoite's likely going to claim most of the top spots with separate submissions, so there's not much point."

Which, incidentally, prompted me to drop in on the discussion here. If you were wondering.

Anyhow, it's a bit like allowing Usain Bolt to get both the gold and the silver medal at the same event -- you could make a case he ran well enough to deserve both, but at some point it might just a good idea to free some medals up for other people.

3330070
He's had a good run lately, but it's not like he's unbeatable. He's not the Usain Bolt of writing.

The scoring system exists to encourage participation, since the points are ultimately cumulative. Pascoite getting a high score by having high participation is less what I'd call a mockery and more, well, working as intended.

I've actually seen several people go "Eeeeh, not sure it's really worth competing in the writeoffs. Pascoite's likely going to claim most of the top spots with separate submissions, so there's not much point."

There wouldn't be any difference if instead of Pascoite submitting two entries, there were two Pascoite-level authors submitting a story each. (Actually it'd be harder competition because their time wouldn't be spread as thin.) As far as averages are concerned, there are people who perform more consistently than him. They just don't participate as much.

I mean, the way I'm reading this is those people want to lower the competition, because that's the only thing such a rule would do. Why would that be a good thing?

3330084

He's had a good run lately, but it's not like he's unbeatable. He's not the Usain Bolt of writing.

He's not necessarily "unbeatable," but by the website's own scoreboard, he's outrageously ahead of everyone in scoring, places frequently where he enters, and has on multiple occasions won two of the top three spots. If not invincible, then he's very clearly a dominant author within the writeoffs. As much so as anyone reasonably could be in this competition.

"He's had a good run" doesn't really begin to cover that, y'know?

The scoring system exists to encourage participation, since the points are ultimately cumulative. Pascoite getting high scores by having high participation is less what I'd call a mockery and more, well, working as intended.

Making the scoring so intensely favorable to high participation seems rather to imply that having the time on your hands to write multiple entries is vastly better for your overall placement than actually writing better. Pascoite writes two stories for "Beneath the Mask" and walks away with 12 points in overall scoring. Horizon actually wins "Beneath the Mask" and walks away with 9.

...Is that supposed to happen?

Nobody can control the amount of free time they have, and the fact that they're entering at all is already a considerable commitment of time, energy, and writing talent. If the placement so heavily prefers people who have more free time to contribute to the writeoff, then it seems a mockery of the spirit of competition in general, if not the scoring system itself.

Unless the scoreboard and overall placement aren't actually supposed to mean anything, in which case go figure. Might want to make that clearer, though, so people don't look at it with the wrong impression.

There wouldn't be any difference if instead of Pascoite submitting two entries, there were two Pascoite-level authors submitting a story each. (Actually it'd be harder competition because their time wouldn't be spread as thin.)

Well, that's the point. If there were two Pascoite-level authors submitting a story each, then more power to both of them. It's not disheartening for Usain Bolt and another runner to win a medal each. Because two people wound up with medals instead of one. It is disheartening for Usain Bolt to win both medals, to the exclusion of another runner. Which is the issue, y'know?

It's evident that Pascoite's good enough to win multiple times by submitting multiple times. It's happened. Several times. I know people who're actually apathetic about even entering the writeoff because they're aware Pascoite can bump them out of placement by winning twice. Even if that's not philosophically an issue, doesn't that strike you as a practical concern? That people don't even want to enter because of this?

I mean, the way I'm reading this is those people want to lower the competition. That's the only thing such a rule would do. Why would that be a good thing?

The way I see it, the point of a rule is to promote fairness in result, and greater overall quality of competition. You've already mentioned that Pascoite might actually do better if his time weren't spread across multiple entries, and obviously a scoring system designed to favor multiple entries is incredibly unfair to someone who can't commit more than one entry. So... one-submission-per-person can fix that.

So you can kill two birds with one stone by preventing authors with the free time from dominating the scorings against others via shotgunning submissions. As well as encourage those same authors to devote more time and energy to their single submission, which theoretically improves the writing quality overall, yeah?

3330124

Making the scoring so intensely favorable to high participation seems rather to imply that having the time on your hands to write multiple entries is vastly better for your overall placement than actually writing better.

As far as free time is concerned, that's sort of a given anyway. Someone committing more time to the competition is bound to get better results. That just makes sense.

If the question is. "Why does placing 2nd and 3rd grant more points than 1st?" then you've got to remember it goes both ways. Coming both second and ninth (of ten) grants less points than coming third alone. You can't just bang out any old rubbish and expect to snap up bonus points.

Unless the scoreboard and overall placement aren't actually supposed to mean anything, in which case go figure. Might want to make that clearer, though, so people don't look at it with the wrong impression.

I'm not sure how you can tell me Pascoite is dominating the write-off to such a degree that he's intimidating others from participating while bemoaning that he ought not have such a lead on the scoreboard.

The scoreboard's meaning isn't particularly arcane. Its mechanics are clearly explained. I think it on the whole does a good job of showing how well people have placed. The people at the top are for the most part the strongest contestants. Would you disagree?

So you can kill two birds with one stone by preventing authors with the free time from dominating the scorings against others via shotgunning submissions.

You make it sound like a walk in the park to "shotgun" submissions and rank highly. Why does no one else do it?

Don't say free time, because that's baloney. When I enter the short story events, I dedicate the entire bloody weekend to it, and the weekday too if possible. I can barely bang out a complete short story in that amount of time. It's not the free time as much as it's he's really good at this.

He can write two submissions that beat my one in the same amount of time. Should this demoralise me? I don't think so. That just means it's more satisfying when I beat him.

Doesn't that strike you as a practical concern? That people don't even want to enter because of this?

This does concern me. In fact, it's the only thing that could convince me to instate such a rule.

If I can get names that translate into serious potential entrants, then they can have a say in how the competition runs. Are there really that many people who would enter if not for Pascoite's "shotgunning" of all the medals?

Remember that this rule has a cost: for every person who would have submitted multiple entries, I now have only one.

As a point of interest, has anyone bothered talking to Pascoite about this?

Could I suggest an alternative?

Rather than maintaining a total score, how about a running mean of the last three or four competitions? That way you could show how people are performing in the recent past without the totality of their performance appearing to skew the results.

IMO it would address almost all of the issues that have been raised so far.

3330158
Pascoite is still scores ahead in that metric too.

sqlite> select (select sum(value) from scores where event_id >= 20 and artist_id = artists.id) as rsum, name from artists order by rsum desc;
65|Pascoite
20|BobFromBottles
18|Chris
17|Bad Horse
13|Aquaman
11|PavFeira
9|horizon
7|Redsquirrel456
7|RazgrizS57
7|Pearple_Prose
5|Belligerent_Sock
4|alexmagnet
4|WB
3|Eclipse
2|Fangwarden
1|Flashgen

That said, I'm always game to throw extra numbers on the scoreboard if people are interested in them.

Without even bringing Pascoite up, I always thought it was silly in the first place to allow more than one submission per writer. If it's just a matter of inconvenience keeping people from submitting more than one story if it's ever against the rules, that'd make anyone who does go to the trouble to submit more than once kind of a douchebag I wouldn't want to compete against anyway.

As well as the fact that I don't want to waste time waffling between two stories by the same guy when I vote for the winner, because well... that's just inherently unfair. It's like one presidential candidate competing against himself on two different platforms, and everyone votes for that instead of the third party.

Thinking about not having Pascoite in the write off, no matter how suited his style is to write offs, should not even be a consideration to anyone. I can't believe that was even brought up.

But if it came to a vote, I'd restrict it to one story per person per event. Maybe you could submit more and have the best story be on the leaderboard, would that be a decent compromise?

3330157

I'd say that, disregarding Pascoite, one submission per person makes sense, just as a general rule. /shrug

3330166 yes, but if he places lower for a couple of competitions he'll drop down the board pretty quickly. As things stand, pascoite is just at the top all the time.

Which, I admit, is somewhat the point of a page showing absolute totals, but I think the issue is that the absolute totals don't reflect the reality of the present. Sure, pascoite might maintain top position on a running mean basis as well, but the fact is that it would be a lot easier to pop into that top spot.

It seems that the way things are is leading to a little frustration at the apparently unassailable position of the top spot. So far the only suggestion has been to change the rules, which I don't personally think would be a fair solution. I'd like to think that I'm suggesting an alternative that would satisfy everyone without compromising the integrity of the scores or forcing dramatic changes on the way the write-offs are run.

3330171
It's more that the absence of any rule is the default. For it to become a rule, there would have to be some argument for it. This is the first time it's ever been brought up as an issue.

3330172

Maybe you could submit more and have the best story be on the leaderboard, would that be a decent compromise?

That would actually incentivise multiple submissions more so, because the risk that one of your entries scores below average (and hence loses you points) is gone.

3330174
Other people have used it. In particular for the minific contests, a lot people submit more than one.

3330157

If the question is. "Why does placing 2nd and 3rd grant more points than 1st?" then you've got to remember it goes both ways. Coming both second and ninth (of ten) grants less points than coming third alone. You can't just bang out any old rubbish and expect to snap up bonus points.

Well, in theory. In practice if someone's good enough to make out with second on one entry, and tries decently hard on another, it's far more likely to push them above first than bring them below third. Or, it'd seem that way, anyhow. The sample size is fairly small, so it's hard to draw conclusive data.

I'm not sure how you can tell me Pascoite is dominating the write-off to such a degree that he's intimidating others from participating while bemoaning that he ought not have such a lead on the scoreboard.

Well, the thing is that you can't really have it both ways. Given how much of a lead he's rocking, either Pascoite's commandingly dominant within the writeoff, or the scoreboard isn't actually that useful/worth much consideration as a metric. One or the other is feasible. I don't think you could assert both that the scoreboard's useful and that Pascoite isn't dominating.

The scoreboard's meaning isn't particularly arcane. Its mechanics are clearly explained. I think it on the whole does a good job of showing how well people have placed. The people at the top are for the most part the strongest contestants. Would you disagree?

It's a little tough to tell because participation between writeoffs appears sporadic except for a decently small core of repeat contestants. I will suggest that it'd be pretty difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to upset those leads without resorting to repeat entries in their own right. I don't think being a stronger contestant alone could catch you up if you're only submitting one entry per writeoff.

You make it sound like a walk in the park to "shotgun" submissions and rank highly. Why does no one else do it?

I'm gonna suggest, quite frankly, that the Writeoffs don't have an especially high profile, and since there aren't many prizes offered for competing, it's not too high a priority for a lot of people. I'm sure there are plenty of prolific writers within the fandom who could bring in multiple entries if they wanted to, but as it stands... the motivation isn't entirely there. This isn't to say people who enter aren't invested in winning with their entry, but they're not necessarily invested to the point that they'll deliberately shotgun entries to better their overall placement. Since, as you mentioned, it takes some effort.

Which, uh, I guess kinda makes it especially important for placement to seem fair and relatively inclusive, since the main prize for competing is prestige for placing.

He can write two submissions that beat my one in the same amount of time. Should this demoralise me? I don't think so. That just means it's more satisfying when I beat him.

It'd be demoralizing to me if Pascoite winds up ahead of me in scoring despite my one submission beating two of his individually. But your mileage may vary.

3330187

Then now's a good time to consider implementing it, I'd say!

3330187
Not to harp too much, but I brought this up multiple times with both Golden and Number25 when they were more active with running these events. It's not too hard to figure out how well that went

And I know I've kind of flip-flopped on it before, but solidifying my stance now. If it continues with multiple submissions allowed per author (minific writeoffs excluded), I won't be participating in any more Writeoffs. As much as I enjoy the competition and getting feedback, watching Pascoite continuously put in multiple submissions and dominate the board, preventing other people from scoring too, takes a significant chunk of the fun out of it. And if I'm not having fun within the bounds of the writeoff, I'd rather not waste my time doing it.

I'd be slightly more okay with it if, when you submit multiple stories, only your highest scoring story is allowed in the actual ranking. Then that lets other people have a chance at top three instead of "Oh great, there's all of Pascoite's stories again."

3330189
If someone wishes to assail Pascoite's position on the scoreboard, then it's going to take them a lot of work, because he put in a lot of work to get there.

I don't think you could assert both that the scoreboard's useful and that Pascoite isn't dominating.

He is dominating, and the scoreboard reflects that. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

It'd be demoralizing to me if Pascoite winds up ahead of me in scoring despite my one submission beating two of his individually. But your mileage may vary.

If you're only valuing the cumulative score, I suppose. You still end up with more gold medals. That's why there are multiple metrics available.

3330191
Certainly. I am putting this under delicate consideration. This is not a decision I would make hastily.

3330218

If someone wishes to assail Pascoite's position on the scoreboard, then it's going to take them a lot of work, because he put in a lot of work to get there.

My point is that the position is probably unassailable without resorting to shotgunning entries on your own part. Since even if in theory you can take more medals with single entries, your score can climb slower than someone else submitting multiple entries for the same prompt--which may individually be worse, but worth more cumulatively.

That strikes me as very... off.

He is dominating, and the scoreboard reflects that. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Your prior response to my assertion that Pascoite was dominant was, and I quote: "He's had a good run lately, but it's not like he's unbeatable. He's not the Usain Bolt of writing." So it seemed there was a point of dispute over Pascoite's dominance. Guess we've got that cleared, then.

If you're only valuing the cumulative score, I suppose. You still end up with more gold medals. That's why there are multiple metrics available.

The scoreboard ranks by cumulative score. And, on that measure, it seems rather counterintuitive that someone who can secure more wins could be rated lower than someone who can secure more entries.

...Not even looking at the issue of the same person securing multiple wins with multiple entries.

If you're only valuing the cumulative score, I suppose. You still end up with more gold medals. That's why there are multiple metrics available.

To be honest, I never cared about the cumulative score. To me, it's simply that every writeoff, I find myself going into it thinking "Well, Pascoite is going to win at least two of the three top spots, so it's not worth trying to place." Which I'm sure isn't what is desired at all.

3330222
I fear we may be running ourselves in circles.

Someone should expect to be able to beat him in a single event. That's as easy as writing a better story than him. horizon did it in this event. Pascoite isn't Usain Bolt and a Usain Bolt clone guaranteed to claim gold and silver.

Someone shouldn't expect to be able to up and surpass Pascoite's cumulative score with just a few strong entries. That would demean the consistency and strength of his own work.

Sorry if this is curt. It's well past my bed time now.

3330237
I'm glad you've made yourself heard. I like having more data points.

That said, personally, I find that to be very defeatist thinking. I can't fathom how anyone could win anything with that kind of pessimism. The way I see it, all I've gotta do is write a better story than him. It's as simple as that.

3330258
But that's just it, I have to either write one story better than two of his, or two stories as good as his. And I simply don't have that kind of time available to do so.

And it's not defeatist to me, because I watch it happen every time. This is simple fact.

3330258

Sorry if this is curt. It's well past my bed time now.

Well, go get some sleep. You can read this stuff later.

I don't think anyone's advocating for knocking down Pasciote from his pedestal and go docking points. It's obvious enough he did earn all those internet points in the various competitions. The problem, I think, isn't so much about surpassing his cumulative score or placing higher than him in any given writeoff. I don't think anyone really even cares about the points themselves. The problem, as I've seen and heard, is the overall fairness of the competition.

3330157

If I can get names that translate into serious potential entrants, then they can have a say in how the competition runs.

I can genuinely say I didn't enter the writeoff this time because I knew Pasc would take most of the top slots. I don't have much of a problem with him winning 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place, but if he sweeps by with more than one of them, that just puts me off from even trying.

3330258
I don't think the point is that people want to pass Pasco's cumulative score. The point Obs seems to be trying to make is that the cumulative score has no reflection on the average quality of a writer's entries, because by its very design it almost exclusively rewards whoever submits the most total entries over time rather than whose individual entries receive the highest average ratings. I assume the changes in position point values relative to the total number of entries was meant to add a greater value to higher places in events with more participants, and it would work that way if the number of participants was in any way constant. The reality, however, is that it's not, and that means that some authors are listed highly in the rankings mostly because they happened to enter writeoffs with large bodies of entries. To pick but one example, the users Ion-Sturm and Duncan R. have both entered only one writeoff, but Ion-Sturm's bronze medal is worth more than 1.5 times Duncan R.'s gold medal in terms of points purely because of fluctuations in total entrants. Based on this, your assertion that someone could conceivably catch up with Pasco's overall score with just "hard work" doesn't hold water, because even sweeping all three podium positions could be worth less than one of Pasco's old victories if there's too small of a turnout.

You're not wrong in saying that there are other metrics by which to measure success in writeoffs, the aforementioned one being the medal count, but given that the scoreboard displayed on the site sorts by total score, the medal count is clearly secondary. In light of this, Obs' assertion is correct: either Pascoite is dominant to the point that he's more than doubled the total score of the third-place user on the list (which understandably sours the odds of new entrants trying to test the waters and surpass him), or the scoring system is fundamentally flawed. Personally, I'd lobby for a scoreboard organized by average finishes in final voting, rather than the scoring system in place now. By its very nature, a system sorted by average finish would produce a clear metric of overall skill, as well as naturally discourage multiple entries. If an author were skilled enough to place in the top three, a second entry could only decrease their average finishing order from the maximum they could've obtained with just one entry.

I am shocked, dismayed, and thoroughly disappointed by this discussion.

Are you all really arguing about points? Is that all the writeoff is to you, a numbered competition?

Yes, it's fun to test your mettle against other writers, but that shouldn't be the point. The point is to challenge yourself to write a full story in three days. The point is to get shit done. The competition is good to see how well you're doing, maybe even a decent representation of how well-received a particular story is, but the overall medal count and scoreboard is just for fun! At least, I've always thought so.

Let me blow a hole in this argument, for argument's sake: multiple entries can really cream your overall score if you're not careful. If you're submitting more than one entry, generally speaking one of them is likely to do well while the other languishes. Do well in both cases, or -- and we should never forget that this is the only metric on which stories are scored -- just better than enough other people, and it can be rewarding.

In "What Lies Beneath", the first minific writeoff, I took second and last. That Wooden Spoon gave me a whopping -35 points because there were so many entries. If I hadn't also taken fifth, I would have come away with -2 points overall. As it is, I got positive 24, which was blown away by the -48 that came off my poor showing in "One Little Mistake". Four entries, none reaching higher than 13th place, none with a positive score. My wins have always been in the tiny writeoffs, the ones worth maybe six points, while my losses have been in the big ones, and that's really what determines your score more than anything.

Now me, I don't care. Maybe that's just me. But I would suggest anyone arguing this "no multiple submissions" point step back and have a good long think about what's important to them. Because let me tell you, being the best at horse words is one of those Special Olympics cases: not really something you should be shooting for. Focus more on having fun and/or improving your own work.

Plus, minifics would be hella boring if everyone only had one entry.

inb4 personal attacks

3331242
I'm not partial to one side or the other in the debate over multiple entries. I'm just enough of a stats junkie that I selfishly wish the scoring system had more data for me to pore over.

3331242
Believe me, I don't care about these scores or medals or points either (though I do love my wooden spoon). They're for fun like you said, and the real enjoyment comes with the challenge of the events' restrictions and pushing oneself, in addition to getting a bunch of stories to read. The only thing that will ever stopped me from participating is my own time, and nothing stupid like scores or medals will ever get in the way of that for me.

However, I can also understand the mentality of those wanting "fairness" in the writeoffs, and I don't think anyone truly cares that much about the scores. Rather, by my understanding, it's all about placing in the top three. There should be no arguing that these writeoffs are competitions, and unfortunately that carries and sets the idea that they can be "won." I've heard from many people in the Skype chats I'm in that they would like to participate, but they don't because they don't think they can "win." And, I'd think, that has a sort of adverse effect on the writeoffs: Less but consistent participants, versus more but inconsistent participants.

I feel bad for Pasciote to be harped on like this. He is a skilled writer and there's no doubt he's earned whatever overall meaningless internet points he's got. And while I do like 3330512's idea about averaging scores, I also think that'd be getting nothing done. The problem as I see it has nothing to do with the actual points and scores, but more to the do with the distribution of the medals. People are silly for thinking that those matter and in the end, it's their own faults and loss.

The only middle ground I can think of would be if one person were to submit multiple stories, they could only win one medal (Do the medals themselves reward points? I'd sure hope not), but I still see this debacle as a whole ultimately pointless. Personally, I don't care what happens, or if a limit is put in place or not on the regular writeoffs. But I would hate to see a limit imposed on the minific ones.

3331494
Just to be clear, I'd fully support being able to shotgun minifics. Flood them in. But for longfics, I'd prefer one per person.

Just ditch the medals and/or scores. Can't win/lose a contest that doesn't exist anymore.

3331494
I mean, I'm gonna do the averaging thing anyway, just for myself. Probably blog about it or something like I did with ranking the Top 50 most followed users a while back.

3331626
As a numbers enthusiast myself who happens to be lazy, I encourage your action.

3330070

Pascoite's scored almost as much as the second and third people behind him combined

This is more about frequency of participation and the types of events. You score a lot more points in minific events that in regular ones, since there are more entries.

Pascoite's likely going to claim most of the top spots with separate submissions, so there's not much point.

This has happened exactly twice in the sixteen events I've entered. That hardly makes it a foregone conclusion or even a likelihood.

3330124

and has on multiple occasions won two of the top three spots

Again, this has happened twice in sixteen events. The use of "multiple" here smacks as a word choice that, while technically correct, is intended to be misleading for rhetorical purposes.

Pascoite writes two stories for "Beneath the Mask" and walks away with 12 points in overall scoring. Horizon actually wins "Beneath the Mask" and walks away with 9.

Take a look at how much Pav Feira scored on "The Price of a Dream." Nobody complained.

Nobody can control the amount of free time they have

And I have less than most. On the previous event, a minific write-off, there was a 24-hour writing period. I had less than 10 hours of that available. Nobody cared that I entered four times. I suspect that's because my highest finished only fifth. For that matter, PresentPerfect also entered four, and he's submitted more total stories than anyone. Nobody's complaining. Some people have more time than others, and some people can do more with that time. To illustrate that last one, note that shortskirtsandexplosions once entered a story well over 20k words. Nobody claimed that was unfair. If he can do that within the time limit, then more power to him. Should we take a week to write, with everyone on the honor system that they don't take any more than 72 hours actually working on the story? Time management is part of it. Some work up to the deadline on the writing alone, others have time to edit, and others can't participate at all. I've been in all three situations.

3330237

To be honest, I never cared about the cumulative score.

This, so much. I don't care either. If the scoreboard is intimidating, give it a less prominent place on the site, abolish it altogether, whatever. I participate in these write-offs because they're the only consistent motivation I have to write. The score is more indicative of how many events a writer has entered and is biased toward minific contests. I'm more interested in seeing who writes stories I enjoyed, not what they scored. And in those regards, I'm far from intimidating. How about Pav Feira, who won gold three of the four times he entered? How about Duncan R (who also entered as Zaravatura), who won gold all three times he entered? Bob from Bottles and Redsquirrel456, who each have two golds and three total medals in four tries? Those are the intimidating guys, and if that's the root problem, then there might as well be a rule saying that if you medal, you can't participate in the next event or two.

3331626
It'd be interesting if you could combine both systems somehow. Your system avoids possible over-weighting of heavily attended contests, but Roger's accounts for the fact that finishing fifth is much more difficult if there are twenty entries than if there are five. Were you thinking of normalizing over a [-1,1] interval or something? Or using the voting scores rather than the order of finish?

3330172
Dude, you're back? You scared me. Don't do that again.

In the early days, there was a rule that a writer could only get the highest medal he earned. It never came up, but the way it went, if someone got gold and silver, the third-place finisher got the silver, and the fourth-place finisher got the bronze. The voting scores were still reported, so the winner knew he had placed second as well, but the medals got pushed down. I'm perfectly fine with a system that does that. In fact, the first event Golden Vision hosted (and the only one to have prizes, which was yet another step in moving these toward a competition and away from a writing workshop) was the only other time I got two medals, and I told him to give third prize to the fourth-place finisher. As it turns out, he was going to suggest it himself.

As I urged everyone in my post before this event began, these things weren't supposed to be about the competition. They're a wonderful motivation to write and a great forum for receiving feedback about what you've done. If that's not what people are getting out of it, then they're missing the point. What they're also missing is that competition is relative. A few months back, AugieDog held a contest for Luna fics. Only the winner was announced, but by the responses of other participants and even some of Augie's own comments, it was clear that I placed 4th or 5th of 7 entries. And I was damn proud to place that well against the caliber of competition, including Skywriter, Chris, and horizon, the winner. There is no glory in these things, because so few people ever see the results. It's all about the writing.

It's also peculiar that people are so quick to make an exception for the minific events. What makes them so different? If SS&E can quadruple my word count in a three-day event, then he's also going to do so in a minific event. Do we limit everyone to four entries? Even then, how is that fair to people who can only manage one, either for time or lack of ideas?

I'll abide by whatever rules people wish to put in place, but I'm far from the first person to make multiple entries. The more this becomes a contest, the less interest I have in participating, anyway. The real prize here is getting feedback on your stories from the likes of Chris, horizon, PresentPerfect, Bad Horse, InquisitorM, and everyone else I'm going to anger by not providing an exhaustive list. Most of my stories came out of write-offs. On any given story page, FiMFiction puts a column in the margin of the author's top-rated stories. Let me go down mine and say how they finished in write-offs:
3rd, 3rd, 10th, 8th, N/A, N/A, estimated 5th, 1st, 3rd, 4th

Fully half of those from write-offs didn't medal and yet are my most successful stories. Look how far down you have to go to find a winner. Look how positive a reception a 10th and an 8th place finisher got. They wouldn't have been written if not for the write-offs, and they would not be nearly as good as they are if I'd gotten discouraged by how they finished and didn't use the valuable feedback I got.

3332077 Since it's your main medium of writing stories, I can totally see your point. Motivation to write is key here--I'm tempted to start writing in the write off and getting active, but under a pseudonym so as to not make it a personal competition.

And yes, it's good to be back, but in the sense that a drug addict would return to his old habits. It's a return nonetheless.

3332077
I'm gonna try just raw averages at first, but I may try to add some sort of weighting to account for the number of writeoffs entered. It wouldn't be a very formal thing.

3332077
So much yes.

As I said in my comment (3331494), I'm perfectly fine with a rule for a writer being able to get only the highest medal they earned, because the real heart of this debacle as 3330399 and 3330237 expressed their opinions about, seems to be the medals and the mentality of "winning" they carry.

Yes, I know they're internet points and are meaningless and it's silly for people to be worrying over them, but apparently the idea that someone can get more than one at any given time is discouraging. Or we could, you know, just not change anything. It's ultimately these peoples' loss for thinking this "competition" is a competition, and I guess the question boils down to whether or not this write-off community wants to be more open to potential participants.

However, I still think this is a non-issue. I got my friend Zaponator to participate for the first time last write-off, and he's expressed eagerness to be in more. Take that for whatever it's worth.