Not just about the meme.... truth and revelation.
The day was better.
I don't really know what to say, or how. So I'm just going to write, and hope that it makes some sense.
Many of you will know that I've been administrating the Ditmars. It's one of those things that is whispered about, gossiped about and it's possibly used as a bogeyman story to frighten fans. Actually I'm fairly sure that isn't the case - but it would work!
It's something that you can't do if you or your organisation you're working within has any items that are eligible for nomination - they automatically become ineligible. And yet, there doesn't seem to be much by way of care for the Ditmars by anyone other than those who are eligible.
Oh people will nominate - if prodded and it's easy, and similarly they will vote... but the only people who are following it, who care how the rules are changed, who care how it's distributed and where, who care how many people nominate, who care about the eligibility, are the people who are... well... eligible.
So upon having this realisation, some days ago, why am I here, what qualifies me, and would I do it again?
I'm here because I didn't want to see other things like Borderlands or ASIM or ASiF! become ineligible.
I'm here because I think awards play a greater role than just rewarding those who are nominated, I think they are part of what draws the community together, what inspires people and makes them aspire to be like those who are being celebrated and recognised for doing something amazing. It is that particulra effect of the awards that has my care. It is the people who try new things for the first time, who realise they are just as capable of something incredible as those who are winning the awards.
What qualified me, was first of all, I offered. Secondly, I'm not eligible for anything, and thirdly I'm not involved with an organisation that would become ineligible. Last but not least, I've assisted with the administration of the Tin Ducks for the past two years, and found it very rewarding, mainly for reasoning listed above.
Also, all the skills that showed that I could run a fantastic convention, are similarly skills that are used in administrating awards. Though, I didn't anticipate quite the level of fannish politics and other such things... I'd been warned, and I'd taken it on board, but I seem to be lucky enough to see first hand what those people who warned me meant.
This process is far, far from easy. There is little in the rules that is helpful, provides guidance or any suggestion of interpretation for certain things. I am assured by those who would know that the rules are in a damn sight better condition than what they were back around 2000, but really that's now eight years ago, and that things are still decidedly difficult says a lot.
There is a guidelines document that strangedave produced, and I have found it quite useful, and yet the issues that caused me the most upset... weren't things covered by either of these documents. I'm told just the other day that there have been past discussions on interpretation and precedence - though in my discussions with various others who have a history with the awards running process, this didn't come up. A standing committee was suggested at the last business meeting, however an actual formation of this didn't occur at the time, and at this point in time, we stand in much the same place we did at the business meeting for 2007.
As Administrator, I've had my method of doing things snidely remarked on in a backhanded way, I've had people email me about long term understandings or agreements that I haven't applied. I've had potential nominees question me when nominations opened, on how their work would be categorised, and I then had to revisit that decision once the nominations were laid out, because it looked wrong. I've had to make decisions that I'm unhappy with. I made a mistake in ruling someone ineligible for a category, that was pointed out to me and I've had to reissue the ballot. I've been insinuated against, and been textually 'pet petted' in emails for my reaction to ways in which things happen, to things people have done or said.
It feels as if the cone of silence I am meant to operate under, is one that encompasses aslo the taking on of poeple's bad behaviour and not calling them on it. It is implied that because it is better than it was, that I have nothing to complain about.
One point I was making last night, was that surely it has to be obvious the process needs to be overhauled if administering it requires extensive emotional support, or a degree in fannish tradition and history - oh and mind reading.
Don't think for a moment, that if you comment here downplaying my right to my emotional response, that I won't reply in such a way that such a comment deserves. It's a fucking administration process - it shouldn't require any emotional support, let alone the amount that seems to be almost a traditional requirement.
Let me just remind you that I'm not incapable. I'm not disorganised. I have done a very good job at administering this set of awards, with very little support either by way of documentation or resources. I've done so in a very short time frame, and I've gone to considerable effort to make sure that the nomination call went as wide as possible, that no nomination was discounted if a couple of emails could fix it,(this is not a requirement, just something that I took the time to do, rather than just discarding nominations as invalid). I've owned my decisions, and my mistakes alike, and I've never made a decision that will impact a work or nominee without taking as much consideration of it as possible. I've engaged on numerous occasions with those whom my decisions affected, explaining, clarifying and generally, being willing to be held accountable for my actions - without wishing to be interrogated.
Yes, the Ditmars have made me cry. They've made me shake my head with frustration and stress. I've been horrified and mortified by people publically insinuating that my conduct of this process is questionable, without engaging with me about it. I've been torn to shreds emotionally and mentally in an argument that raged about where to hold a discussion on the current state of the Ditmars, their rules and associated things.
The implication of that is of course, that someone expects that I can just be told where such a discussion will be held, and that the decision will be final. It's no secret that I plan to propose changes to the rules for the Ditmars. I wish to clarify specific categories and effect a change that will leave things in a better state for someone else to take on, and at the very least, not have to take on this one issue. Anything else that is scrutinised to fix, with amendments recommended is a bonus. I don't plan for a second to have only one discussion, to seek the thoughts and feedback of only one set of peers.
I've already had several discussion, and I plan to have several more, including utilising my blog, email lists, direct verbal conversations with those I spend time with. The list of people who traditionally pay attention to these things is rather small... I don't see why that should continue to be the case, and that by speaking about my experiences, the relationship it has to everyone; and not just those who are already invested in a nominated work (theirs or someone else's). I would remind people that all that stuff they nominate year by year for recognition in the Tin Ducks, is also eligible for the Ditmars. I would see people thinking, talking, discussing and being involved.
I will answer an earlier question that got away from me in the points above, being would I do this again? Would I put myself in a position to potentially go through the entire process again? My answer is in two parts, because I would like to see improvement in at least the one area I've identified as causing the most consternation and angst both for the potential nominees and the Administrator, before committing to doing this again. Yet, I'm aware that the list of those who are willing to take on this role in it's current state is decidedly short - significantly so than the list of people who have either the skill or the experience to do so.
As things stand, I now understand why this job is called the 'sucker's job'. It is. There's no quibbling, no condition to this... it's just a job that seems to have an inherent invitation for extreme stress on all fronts, bad behaviour and public humiliation.
I want to change this. It doesn't have to be that hard, and nothing to say that the process itself has to be more complicated and painful than the Tin Duck process.
This thing is the kind that causes burn out. I'm pretty careful to recognise this and act accordingly, as I do not wish to be in that state when I know it to be avoidable. The awards are meant to uplift, to celebrate and recognise the talent, committment, creativity and achievement of our vibrant community, not cause people to become burnt out, and stressed. I would do what I can to change this. I would see it be better for the next person to do this after me, because actually I don't find it acceptable that this is normal practice.
I want also to note with a deep and abiding sense of thanks, that the support I have received has been as valuable as it has been necessary. I am so grateful, and I lose the words to express this effectively. I wouldn't have gotten this far without that support.
I don't really know what to say, or how. So I'm just going to write, and hope that it makes some sense.
Many of you will know that I've been administrating the Ditmars. It's one of those things that is whispered about, gossiped about and it's possibly used as a bogeyman story to frighten fans. Actually I'm fairly sure that isn't the case - but it would work!
It's something that you can't do if you or your organisation you're working within has any items that are eligible for nomination - they automatically become ineligible. And yet, there doesn't seem to be much by way of care for the Ditmars by anyone other than those who are eligible.
Oh people will nominate - if prodded and it's easy, and similarly they will vote... but the only people who are following it, who care how the rules are changed, who care how it's distributed and where, who care how many people nominate, who care about the eligibility, are the people who are... well... eligible.
So upon having this realisation, some days ago, why am I here, what qualifies me, and would I do it again?
I'm here because I didn't want to see other things like Borderlands or ASIM or ASiF! become ineligible.
I'm here because I think awards play a greater role than just rewarding those who are nominated, I think they are part of what draws the community together, what inspires people and makes them aspire to be like those who are being celebrated and recognised for doing something amazing. It is that particulra effect of the awards that has my care. It is the people who try new things for the first time, who realise they are just as capable of something incredible as those who are winning the awards.
What qualified me, was first of all, I offered. Secondly, I'm not eligible for anything, and thirdly I'm not involved with an organisation that would become ineligible. Last but not least, I've assisted with the administration of the Tin Ducks for the past two years, and found it very rewarding, mainly for reasoning listed above.
Also, all the skills that showed that I could run a fantastic convention, are similarly skills that are used in administrating awards. Though, I didn't anticipate quite the level of fannish politics and other such things... I'd been warned, and I'd taken it on board, but I seem to be lucky enough to see first hand what those people who warned me meant.
This process is far, far from easy. There is little in the rules that is helpful, provides guidance or any suggestion of interpretation for certain things. I am assured by those who would know that the rules are in a damn sight better condition than what they were back around 2000, but really that's now eight years ago, and that things are still decidedly difficult says a lot.
There is a guidelines document that strangedave produced, and I have found it quite useful, and yet the issues that caused me the most upset... weren't things covered by either of these documents. I'm told just the other day that there have been past discussions on interpretation and precedence - though in my discussions with various others who have a history with the awards running process, this didn't come up. A standing committee was suggested at the last business meeting, however an actual formation of this didn't occur at the time, and at this point in time, we stand in much the same place we did at the business meeting for 2007.
As Administrator, I've had my method of doing things snidely remarked on in a backhanded way, I've had people email me about long term understandings or agreements that I haven't applied. I've had potential nominees question me when nominations opened, on how their work would be categorised, and I then had to revisit that decision once the nominations were laid out, because it looked wrong. I've had to make decisions that I'm unhappy with. I made a mistake in ruling someone ineligible for a category, that was pointed out to me and I've had to reissue the ballot. I've been insinuated against, and been textually 'pet petted' in emails for my reaction to ways in which things happen, to things people have done or said.
It feels as if the cone of silence I am meant to operate under, is one that encompasses aslo the taking on of poeple's bad behaviour and not calling them on it. It is implied that because it is better than it was, that I have nothing to complain about.
One point I was making last night, was that surely it has to be obvious the process needs to be overhauled if administering it requires extensive emotional support, or a degree in fannish tradition and history - oh and mind reading.
Don't think for a moment, that if you comment here downplaying my right to my emotional response, that I won't reply in such a way that such a comment deserves. It's a fucking administration process - it shouldn't require any emotional support, let alone the amount that seems to be almost a traditional requirement.
Let me just remind you that I'm not incapable. I'm not disorganised. I have done a very good job at administering this set of awards, with very little support either by way of documentation or resources. I've done so in a very short time frame, and I've gone to considerable effort to make sure that the nomination call went as wide as possible, that no nomination was discounted if a couple of emails could fix it,(this is not a requirement, just something that I took the time to do, rather than just discarding nominations as invalid). I've owned my decisions, and my mistakes alike, and I've never made a decision that will impact a work or nominee without taking as much consideration of it as possible. I've engaged on numerous occasions with those whom my decisions affected, explaining, clarifying and generally, being willing to be held accountable for my actions - without wishing to be interrogated.
Yes, the Ditmars have made me cry. They've made me shake my head with frustration and stress. I've been horrified and mortified by people publically insinuating that my conduct of this process is questionable, without engaging with me about it. I've been torn to shreds emotionally and mentally in an argument that raged about where to hold a discussion on the current state of the Ditmars, their rules and associated things.
The implication of that is of course, that someone expects that I can just be told where such a discussion will be held, and that the decision will be final. It's no secret that I plan to propose changes to the rules for the Ditmars. I wish to clarify specific categories and effect a change that will leave things in a better state for someone else to take on, and at the very least, not have to take on this one issue. Anything else that is scrutinised to fix, with amendments recommended is a bonus. I don't plan for a second to have only one discussion, to seek the thoughts and feedback of only one set of peers.
I've already had several discussion, and I plan to have several more, including utilising my blog, email lists, direct verbal conversations with those I spend time with. The list of people who traditionally pay attention to these things is rather small... I don't see why that should continue to be the case, and that by speaking about my experiences, the relationship it has to everyone; and not just those who are already invested in a nominated work (theirs or someone else's). I would remind people that all that stuff they nominate year by year for recognition in the Tin Ducks, is also eligible for the Ditmars. I would see people thinking, talking, discussing and being involved.
I will answer an earlier question that got away from me in the points above, being would I do this again? Would I put myself in a position to potentially go through the entire process again? My answer is in two parts, because I would like to see improvement in at least the one area I've identified as causing the most consternation and angst both for the potential nominees and the Administrator, before committing to doing this again. Yet, I'm aware that the list of those who are willing to take on this role in it's current state is decidedly short - significantly so than the list of people who have either the skill or the experience to do so.
As things stand, I now understand why this job is called the 'sucker's job'. It is. There's no quibbling, no condition to this... it's just a job that seems to have an inherent invitation for extreme stress on all fronts, bad behaviour and public humiliation.
I want to change this. It doesn't have to be that hard, and nothing to say that the process itself has to be more complicated and painful than the Tin Duck process.
This thing is the kind that causes burn out. I'm pretty careful to recognise this and act accordingly, as I do not wish to be in that state when I know it to be avoidable. The awards are meant to uplift, to celebrate and recognise the talent, committment, creativity and achievement of our vibrant community, not cause people to become burnt out, and stressed. I would do what I can to change this. I would see it be better for the next person to do this after me, because actually I don't find it acceptable that this is normal practice.
I want also to note with a deep and abiding sense of thanks, that the support I have received has been as valuable as it has been necessary. I am so grateful, and I lose the words to express this effectively. I wouldn't have gotten this far without that support.