|
Des Lewis
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: May 08, 2012, 09:55:03 PM » |
|
Sorry for appearing pernickety - but best to query if things are unclear to some people, so as to avoid future arguments. For example, the reason for my last question was the use of the word 'oversight' earlier, and the possibility that a book being anywhere on the list excludes a book from becoming eligible to be an oversight for adding.
And back to the point of the 'full longlist', I suggest it would have been 'full list', if Stephen's interpretation was correct. I accept whatever anyone takes it to mean, it should have no jurisdiction on what the Awards Admin decide is best published or best not published.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CarolineC
BFS Member
Barbarian Monarch
 Offline
Posts: 898
|
|
« Reply #76 on: May 08, 2012, 11:21:36 PM » |
|
Des - you've got me well and truly confused now! I've asked Sarah to take a look at this thread and see if she can shed light on these things. I'm glad I'm not administering these Awards!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Coleborn
|
|
« Reply #77 on: May 08, 2012, 11:28:05 PM » |
|
Des - you've got me well and truly confused now! I've asked Sarah to take a look at this thread and see if she can shed light on these things. I'm glad I'm not administering these Awards! "Confusion" is one of Des' middle names |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Des Lewis
|
|
« Reply #78 on: May 09, 2012, 07:33:16 AM » |
|
"Confusion" is one of Des' middle names
My middle name is 'Francis' or Frank!  I was attempting to clear up confusions in my mind and, with Stephen's help, I understand it much more now. Hope it has helped others, too. My questions still hanging: do Jurists already know the exact details of the voting to which they are adding books - and can they draw on the longlist itself for 'oversights'? And in exactly what format did the Awards Admin intend to publish as the 'Full longlist"? des |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Theaker
|
|
« Reply #79 on: May 09, 2012, 07:52:29 AM » |
|
It helps to understand the thread if you understand what Des is after: he wants to find out why his books aren't on the shortlist, and, if he can, get his books on the shortlist. The "confusion" is just a smokescreen to help him approach those goals. Smiley face to show I'm not being a meanie.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Des Lewis
|
|
« Reply #80 on: May 09, 2012, 07:53:51 AM » |
|
That's absolute rubbish, Stephen.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Des Lewis
|
|
« Reply #82 on: May 09, 2012, 08:01:17 AM » |
|
I will continue with my position on the members only threads to avoid a row here in public. But I would politely ask you withdraw such crass accusations publicly. You have a history of questioning my integrity - completely unprovoked. des |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Theaker
|
|
« Reply #83 on: May 09, 2012, 08:21:43 AM » |
|
Sorry if I hurt your feelings, Des. My approach was merely to take the leitmotifs in your comments and mould them into a gestalt, just like you do in your real-time reviews... Just brainstorming a talking point, as you might say.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Grafire
BFS Member
Warrior
Offline
Posts: 70
|
|
« Reply #84 on: May 09, 2012, 09:34:46 AM » |
|
There's some great discussion on this thread which will help us improve the process for next year. I would plead with any society member not to press for disclosure of the lists. It would deliver us straight into the hands of haters who want to udermine everything we do (believe me they are out there), and - more importantly - it would sap the morale of the terrific writers who have been nominated. The lists are top-notch and diverse, and if they were otherwise there might be a case for wanting the voting examined. But looking at these shortlists you'd have to be a serious malcontent to think there was anything unfair about it all. The jury aren't a group of chums - Sarah made a wonderfully balanced job of selecting them. Now we must trust them. Then we can tweak and improve the process at the AGM.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Des Lewis
|
|
« Reply #85 on: May 09, 2012, 09:41:47 AM » |
|
I don't think anyone is showing distrust of the jurors. If anything, I think some of the discussion here has been healthy in helping obviate any misperception of the *procedures* by outside bodies not familar with the personnel involved or with the history of the BFS Awards. My own main suggestion for the future would be to have a divorced oversight committee to add books for the deciding jury to consider (as was the procedure when I was on an oversight committee in the 1990s).
des
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Des Lewis
|
|
« Reply #86 on: May 09, 2012, 09:50:03 AM » |
|
Also, sorry, for raising the other point about the voting lists. I think there is a strong argument either way regarding the detail into which the published lists should go, and I genuinely interpreted the first post on this thread as saying they would be publishing the 'full longlist of members' recommendations'. I did add later: "I accept whatever anyone takes it to mean, it should have no jurisdiction on what the Awards Admin decide is best published or best not published."
des
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
