Thoughts? Comments? Glad to see any particular nominations here? Sick to death of the whole thing?

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2000

Answers

RE: The Legacy Award Nominations

As much as I love being petted with awards and accolades and Bendos, I have to agree with Beth. Ryan's influence on the whole online journal phenomenon is immense. He is the logical candidate. Vote for him.

You can still send me Bendos, though...

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2000

I plan to look all the nominees over, although since I can't vote this go-round, it's just for my own pleasure. I'm very glad to see Terri of Footnotes finally represented... she's been around a long time and gone (mostly) unnoticed in spite of some truly excellent writing. I suppose that speaks to the power of being involved in the 'community'.

Glad you and Rob have already spoken up on the Legacy awards... I've given up pushing for what I think it ought to be about... the people who nominate have a different opinion on that, and it's time to bow to the majority. But it is a shame...that was really my favorite award (in concept). But I'm glad Ryan's on there, as he's one of the few that have ever been nominated that actually captures the spirit of that award as I'd like to see it. (Al was another.)

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2000

In all honesty, I can't say that I value the Diarist Awards at all - no disrespect to Beth and Lynda who have been repeatedly kind enough to mention my name in relation to the Legacy Award - it just doesn't have any meaning for me.

I didn't do anything in order to become remembered or respected - I did it because it filled any one of a number of needs, some for others, most selfish. That any project was at all successful was a miracle. I'm absolutely grateful.

I don't know. I'm just at a very different place right now. So, thanks again for being so nice - but I don't need awards.

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2000

I was glad to see Terri there, as well - I've never even *heard* of her journal before, but I went to read it as part of the whole voting process, and wow... It's incredible.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

Yeah, Terri is really good. I read through her stuff after Lynda linked to her recently. All three of the best writing finalists are very good, and it's a tough choice -- Laurie has been writing great stuff for years without a lot of attention from the "grown up" diarists, and Karen is just fantastic.

I was also glad to see our own Joanne of Parietal Pericardium there. (You do know that if you're a regular poster on this forum, you belong to us, right? Okay then.)

I still need to go through the best entry finalists. I obviously haven't been keeping up with my journal reading this quarter, because I've read exactly two of these -- even though a lot of the nominated journals are on my daily reads list.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

In her entry for August 5 Beth wrote:
"there are still true pioneers out there whose efforts have gone unrecognized"

That kind of talk always makes me roll my eyes. Pioneers whose efforts have gone unrecognized??? Sheesh. Let's examine the three key words.

pioneers: so they were first. So what? They took advantage of a new technology (the internet) in an obvious way. Putting the equivalent of a paper journal online is hardly innovative. People have been keeping journals forever. The internet comes along and people start putting their journals online. It was simply an inevitable, natural consequence of a new technology. If a new bridge is built across a river, do we heap accolades upon the first ones to use it? Do we call them pioneers simply for crossing a bridge? No, of course not. Calling the first ones pioneers implies they opened the way for the rest of us. They didn't. The bridge was there for us to use whether or not these so called pioneers went ahead of us. It's not like these people were facing adversity. It's not like these people overcame obstacles. It's not like these people showed amazing inovation. They simply took advantage of new technology. Big deal. They're not pioneers.

efforts: The first people to keep journals did not put any more effort into them than current journalers. There is nothing special about their efforts simply by virtue of being first.

unrecognized: Huh? Without a stupid award their efforts are unrecognized? That's one heck of an assumption. Isn't success its own reward? Is nothing anyone does recognized unless it gets an award?

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

sure dave, putting a journal online had unforeseen consequences. You didn't know who was reading it, their reaction to it, how much you should say, or not say. The web was small relatively speaking and if I might say so somewhat mysterious even just a couple years ago.

I guess pioneers also inspire other people to jump on board.

But the best reason for the award, in my opinion, even if it is absolutely meaningless, is that it irritates Dave Van.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

I am so obsessed with these awards and I can finally sleep, now that Ryan has become a finalist. I really really hope he wins.

The only other comment, I s'pose I have to make is about my pet peeve.

My biggest pet peeve, in relation to the awards would be the fact that people always talk about how they were disappointed to see that "So'n'so" didn't get nominated.

There's a difference in being nominated and being a finalist.

Let me explain...
No, there is too much, let me sum up...

Simply because there are only three people as finalists, doesn't mean that the person that you wanted to see get nominated, didn't get nominated.

It may very well be the case that the person *was* nominated, but the finalist selection panel liked three other people better than the person you wanted to see nominated.

And of course, there's always the argument: If you want someone to win an award, nominate them. (=

Oh, I guess there is one other thing: I would just like to offer public kudos to this quarter's panel. They did an awesome job! Thanks, folks, for all your hard work!

And of course if you're interested in serving on a future panel you can drop me a line and I'll get back to you with the necessary info.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

Huh? Without a stupid award their efforts are unrecognized? That's one heck of an assumption. Isn't success its own reward? Is nothing anyone does recognized unless it gets an award?

What an excellent point, Dave. Who needs an award when you have achieved such a zen-like state of satisfaction with your writing?

Now explain to me again why it was that when the awards were first being given, you were conveniently organizing your own journal entries into the same quarters as the awards.

"Waiter, there's something wrong with these grapes..."

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

Rob, I already explained that when Beth brought it up about a year ago: there were too few files in the monthly directories so I used quarterly.

Perhaps you could explain the mechanism by which organizing one's entries into quarters increases their chances of winning an award. You're grasping at straws.

If I really wanted an award I'd have begged my readers to vote for me in the last round, like certain other desperate diarists do. Or, even better, I could have asked them not to vote for me. That ploy has a pretty good track record.

Anyway Rob, I'm sorry to have called your precious awards "stupid." I know how much they mean to you. Please allow me to withdraw the word. That wasn't the point of my post anyway, it was about these so called "true pioneers."

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

Please please please could this journal-related thread not degenerate into a Rob vs Dave issue yet again? Just agree to disagree, OK?

I'm not big on awards, personally. The occasional happy email from an appreciative reader is enough to keep me writing. However, if people feel valued by being nominated, then great. I'm pleased my mate Anna had an entry nominated, and I'll always think your journal deserves legacy awards, Beth, because the quality of your writing is consistently high. And if I've not come across half the journals featured in this quarter's round before because no journal writers who I feel I share similar tastes with have ever linked to them, I'm unlikely to read them now, just because they've been nominated.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

Gosh, see all this petty shite Dave and Rob and throwing at each other? Over what is, essentially, a badge for one's site. That would be the perfect example of why I don't like them.

When they were first established, the intent of the diarist.net awards was "...highlighting the best and brightest the genre has to offer."

While it is a noble thought, what the entire awards process appears to be is a quarterly excuse for in-fighting, backstabbing, wild accusations of..well, anything one can make fit their argument, and petty gossip. (Such as, Rob and Dave's little spat, here). Like there isn't enough of that in the OLJ community that we need an outside catalyst like these awards.

And the worst of it is, there is still no way to decline your nomination, except to pull that particular entry down, or your whole site down, or to post an entry that says, "Please don't vote for me" and hope people see it.

On a Blog mailing list I am on, someone suggested that we all take a leaf from the OLJ book and create some sort of central awards for great blogs, and among the people on that list that knew what the diarist.net site and awards were, there was a huge outcry for the blogging community not to follow the journal community that way - a number of people expressed the opinion that they didn't read OLJs because it seemed to them that so many of them just focused on these awards - these aren't every day journal readers, and if you just check them out once every month or so and hit the week of announcements, it can seem like OLJs just focus on what they can win, or what sort of petty gossip is going around about that quarter's finalists. My favourite quote from that discussion goes something like, "The problem with awards is that, once you introduce them, the community will start to produce for them. And who knows what sort of creativity gets lost in that process?"

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

Well, I see plenty of possibility for humor in a weblog award.

"Best Links Culled From a Traditional News Site"

"Best Links to a Flamewar About Weblogs"

"Best Troll on Metafilter"

"Best Links to Links to a Flamewar About Weblogs"

"Best Links to Ben Brown - Positive"

"Best Links to Ben Brown - Negative"

"Best Positive Weblogging"

"Best Shameless Link Whoring"

Of course, most people wouldn't see the humor. Pity.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

(Who is Ben Brown?)

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

http://www.benbrown.com/

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

Boys: behave.

I hereby nominate Gabby for best post on an award-related forum topic. Especially for the dual Ben Brown categories.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

Now that I've seen Ben Brown's site, I have only one question...

Who is Ben Brown? And is he getting mentioned a lot?

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

Diane: Go here. And yes, Ben gets mentioned in a lot of weblogs.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

so, is ilovebenbrown.com owned by benbrown?

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

I posted this wonderful example of English Grammar here earlier today: "Gosh, see all this petty shite Dave and Rob and throwing at each other? Over what is, essentially, a badge for one's site. That would be the perfect example of why I don't like them."

I just wanted to say that the 'them' in that sentence does not in fact refer to Dave and Rob, but to the Diary Awards.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

gabby:

Bravo. There are actually a number of really fine blogs out there, but the notion of the "blog community" turning up their noses at journalers is hilarious.

-christopher

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

Boys: behave.

I think perhaps it's time for me to step away from your forum for a while. My response to Dave was, I thought, a pretty legitimate point, but obviously not phrased in a very constructive manner. I don't think it's possible for me to answer anything he says in a public place without it becoming "Rob and Dave's petty shit". That is, let me hasten to add, totally my own fault.

Anyway, feel free to delete my comments if you so desire, I totally understand. The fact that my name has become somehow attached to Dave's is, I think, both regrettable and something that I should probably do my best to reverse in the future.

As for the awards, I think that the lack of familiar names this go- around is an extremely positive development. I've been reading through some of them, and there's some outstanding writing going on out there of which I was totally unaware. How did I miss "Footnotes" for so long?

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

Lynda's been hyping FOOTNOTES forever, it seems like, Rob. I've included her in Lives On-Line. I'm glad she's finally getting the reknown she deserves.---Al of NOVA NOTES....hey, waitaminnit! "Lack of familiar names"?

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

hey, waitaminnit! "Lack of familiar names"?

Present company excluded, of course...

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

Jackie, you mentioned that just because an unfamiliar journal has been nominated for an award, you probably won't go read it, just because your favorite journalers haven't linked to it.

I would like to respectfully suggest that perhaps your favorite journallers haven't heard of those sites, either. I served on the Awards Panel this quarter, and as a result ran across a crapload of sites I hadn't seen before. Many of them were excellent, and I've gained about five new bookmarks because of it. (Yes, Terri from FootNotes is one of them -- I'd never read her journal before, but after I visited it, I read through her entire archives, which took me about a week.)

I'd also like to say that from where I stand, the awards don't seem to me to be full of backbiting, sniping, or in-fighting. So Dave Van picks on Rob about it; so what? So a bunch of people say, in various fora, that they don't like them; so what? Nobody is forcing anyone to take part in the awards.

Additionally, no one is forcing anybody to put the awards logo on their website. Diarist.net is announcing "Hey, your peers think that your writing is so good that you deserve an award for it." You aren't required to make mention of it on your site. You aren't even required to go to the Diarist.net page to look at the awards listing. And as far as taking an entry down -- if you didn't want people to read it, why did you post it in the first place?

I'd just like to say that I took my position on the panel seriously, and tried to nominate those sites and entries that I honestly felt to be the best. I wasn't politically motivated; I wasn't influenced by backbiting or sniping; I just picked the journals I thought were the most outstanding and voted for them.

Frankly, I don't know why this is such a big issue with some people. If you want to take part in the awards, then do. If you don't, then don't. I have no idea why some people get so upset at the concept of an awards ceremony.

Anyway, that's my $.02.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

Very simple, Rob - you missed Footnotes because you don't listen to me!! *pout*!

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

What was that, Lynda?

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

I said, "Mrmffoerapfl erthp rewognrod!" And don't forget it!

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2000

That's easy for YOU to say, Lynda---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

Jan, good point. Maybe I'm just getting lazy - because there are so many journals around, and it's easier to find which ones are worth reading if somebody with whom I have similar tastes draws my attention to them.

But that's my lack of time speaking, and I in no way meant that the journals nominated aren't worthy of attention.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

And I don't mean to steal Lynda's thunder, but Rob, you didn't listen to ME either. I have been reading and linking to Terri of FootNotes FOREVER.

Guess that shows how well you read. Humph. Men who live in Connecticut.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

I first came across Terri's Footnotes in Patrick's List of links, ages and ages and ages ago. Ben Brown I wouldn't have believed if I hadn't read the site.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

I found it pretty amazing that the two other nominees for best journal were journalers I didn't know. I've run across Terri from links in the past and liked her writing, but then never followed up or lost the links or whatever (this happens to me a lot.) Sasha's journal "I'd Rather Eat Glass" I'd never even heard of. Both are excellent.

To me, this is the best part of the awards. I don't read a lot of journals so it is fun to have a bunch of good writing pointed out in this way. Not to say it isn't a nice ego stroke to be nominated, of course.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

OK, what I said earlier, about "if you didn't want people to read your entry why did you post it in the first place?" I take it back, because I just read what Alyx of Thought Experiment had to say about her entry that was nominated for Best Dramatic, and it made a lot of sense to me. I think her reasons for pulling her entry were good.

It wouldn't have made as much sense for a comedic entry, or for one of the whole-site awards, but I can really see that if you poured your heart and soul out, shared something really private, in an entry, you wouldn't want that to be judged by others, or in fact for that to be the first thing that new visitors to your site read about.

That makes sense to me.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

Hey...I thought Dave had been banned from this thing. As Brak once said to Moltar, "you're not allowed!" Puzzled, Harold
wonderland 2

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

You know, even before there was an internet it was possible to publicize your private journals. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who, in 1986, was xeroxing my written diaries, censoring them (in different ways, mind you - I'm still working on how to reliably do that using the internet), and emailing them to my parents and friends from my high school. The most notorious case of publication of my diaries involved my long-time friends Heather Bissel and Alex Guldbeck ( http://www.enemies.com ).

1989: One day Alex was in a deep funk due to his recent breakup with his girlfriend Karina. He told me all the intimate details of their sex life, including the time he took her virginity. Well, true to form, I wrote it all down in my diary. But it was just too juicy to leave there. So, sort of like hiding stuff in my source, I xeroxed the account and glued it to the underside of some drawers in my dorm room.

1991: Fast forward two years. Alex's good friend Nate Rudolf is living in my old dorm room and is sorting his laundry in his normal fashion, that is, on his back, tossing the clothes into the various open drawers. Something catches his eye. He discovers the diary. He tells some friends. Heather Bissel finds out. She happens to be at war with Alex at the time.

Later that Evening: All over Oberlin campus as people sit down to dinner in the various dining halls, they encounter a puzzling tabling. That's right, Heather had made hundreds of copies of the journal and distributed them campus-wide. (Eventually she is called before the Judicial Board and made to write a formal apology.)

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

I wish there was some way to find out how many nominees there were for each category. Is there, and I just don't know about it?

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

Finding out how many: I think you have to sidle up to a committee member, blink at them attractively, and ask throatily, "Hey, baby. So. How many sites were uh... first-round nominated, nudge nudge, wink wink?"

Also, I am pleased and proud of everyone's adultness in discussing this round's nominees. Yay, us!

But...I'm sort of sad (in a wrong, wrong way) that no one wants to talk shit. Controversy! Action! I miss it.

Oh well. May I say mildly and non-controversially, congrats to everyone nominated.

May I also say that I clearly cannot spell.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

I agree with Dave about the pioneer stuff. However, I also agree with Beth that there are more deserving nominees that should have been finalists. Doug Franklin, for one, though you would never see Doug complaining about not getting the award.

Anyway, the legacy award has come down to "who influenced me", rather than who influenced the people who influenced them. So it's a generation of two behind the times. But that's what happens in a highly transient population-- no sense of history.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

I wish the finalists would stick to their one vote.

I find it extremely tacky when finalists tell us who to vote for. Not only is it poor form for a duly selected finalist to be attempting to influence the free vote, a subversion of the award process if there ever was one, but it reeks of cheap showiness.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

Yeah. It's almost as bad as someone sticking to their usual carping and complaining about the same damn thing and the same person, over and over.

Man, Dave. Find someone else to snipe at. National election's going on. You might have heard about it. Go be political.

I will say that it is sort of a, uh. Hm. A not-objective thing? Slightly tacky? To urge votes for yourself in this arena. But how is it wrong to urge journallers to vote for someone other than themselves?

This also dovetails with the furor over people who wish to refuse a nomination, and urge voters to vote for someone else. Why is that sometimes an issue? They have every right to not wish to be considered. Or some other grammatical weirdness like that.

Though to be fair, that's been less of an issue this go-around.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

(g) I don't think Dave was talking about people begging votes for themselves... he's talking about finalists saying "Don't vote for me, vote for ____". Guessing that due to the promixity of his post to Beth's comments about Ryan.

Dave is free, of course, tell me to fuck off.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

"National election's going on. You might have heard about it. Go be political."

There is no National Election going on - in Canada. Election won't even be called this year, and the House of Commons has at least another 2 years to sit.

I hust had to point this out - my biggest pet peeve is the assumption that Everyone Must Care about American Politics. Even non Americans like Dave. Sorry. Please, everyone, go back to arguing.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

(g) I don't think Dave was talking about people begging votes for themselves... he's talking about finalists saying "Don't vote for me, vote for ____".

Yes. That's what I was wondering about. Why's it a problem?

There is no National Election going on - in Canada. Election won't even be called this year, and the House of Commons has at least another 2 years to sit.

Kristin, you're right. I apologize for my United Statescentrism. And oops, Dave's Canadian, too, isn't he?

Sorry, Dave. Don't be political. Be something else. Happy and carefree? That's always a good one.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

How is publicly stating who want to win an award subverting the election process? Do you think that people will do whatever you tell them just because you say so?

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Why, yes, Jen. Don't you know that you are all my minions, brainwashed and emotionally blackmailed by me into doing whatever I tell you to do? Why, it's practically like Jonestown around here!

Drink the kool-aid, everyone, drink up!

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Jen: As I said above, it's "a subversion of the award process." Why bother holding a vote if the people tell us not to vote for them? Are we holding a vote, or not? By telling us to vote for somebody else they're spoiling (or at least interfering with) the whole award process.

As for all these people who want to decline being finalists, whatever. Pretty damn selfish, if you ask me. Ignore them if you wish, but why fight them? It's just selfish. They're certainly putting their own interest ahead of the community's.

btw, I do care about the American election. That G. Bush is one scary [censored]. I sure hope he doesn't get elected.

(And sorry, Lynda, for that "fuck you" on diary-l.)

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Jen Wade: Ask Hitler. Heh.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Xeney, stay away from that foum. Don't look.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Yeah. It's a vote. It was swell of you to notice that, Dave.

And that means what, exactly? It's secret? And to get USentric on your ass again, I go tell people "I'll never, never speak to you again if you vote for George Bush."

Oh shit! Have I just subverted the United States national election? Damn.

The point is, to belabor the usual point, why the hell can't we talk about who we want to vote for? Why is it wrong? As someone said earlier, no one here is a Mindless Zombie Slug who will go "Must follow Rob. Must do what Rob say," and then slobber all over themselves.

I didn't vote for who Rob wanted me to vote for. So ha!

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

No, Jen, you probably didn't, but I bet you voted for who Beth wanted you to.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Dave, do you think it's a "subversion of the award process" to ask people to vote for you if you are a finalist? Or is it campaigning?

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

No, Jen. I'm sorry if I haven't been clear on this.

We have a group of people who work hard to bring us an award. We have plenty of people who enjoy this whole award process. People are nominated and people are selected as finalists. There is then a vote to see who wins. That's the game, and a lot of people think it's fun.

When one of the finalists says "I don't want the award" or "vote for somebody else" it ruins the game for *all* the players. It's the same as taking the ball and going home.

No Jenna, it is not a "subversion of the award process" to ask people to vote for you. That's playing the game as it should be played. (Although diarist.net says it is discouraged.)

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Dave, did you read Karen of Thought Experiment's thoughts on this? She had a very thoughtful response and reason for turning down the award.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

It's like this. If Ryan wins, and he should because he's the most deserving, his victory will mean less because it will look like it was handed to him by the other two nominees. If he loses, then the other two can act all humble like, saying they never wanted the thing and what a travesty of justice it is and all that. I think that's what Dave's getting at and he's dead right.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

It's like this. If Ryan wins, and he should because he's the most deserving, his victory will mean less because it will look like it was handed to him by the other two nominees. If he loses, then the other two can act all humble like, saying they never wanted the thing and what a travesty of justice it is and all that. I think that's what Dave's getting at and he's dead right.

Good God, Jim, once again you have flushed out the ugly truth. This is the second time this week that you have seen into the depths of my soul and seen my true heart. You ought to go pro with that trick. It is surely inconcievable that either Beth or I could possibly have endorsed Ryan because we felt, independent of each other, that Ryan was the logical candidate.

If I'd said nothing, I would have felt weird if I'd won. If I do win, I shall also feel weird about it. You can interpret the final results in whatever way you like, and my conscience will be clear because I did what I thought was the right thing by endorsing Ryan.

If you or anyone else wish to attribute some sort of ulterior motive to me, then go ahead. You won't be the first. But you will be, as you put it, dead wrong.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Or, in an alternate universe in which I did not attempt to decline this award and urge people to vote for Ryan, Jim and Dave could bring up the fact that I have, in the past, expressed my dissatisfaction with the fact that the Legacy Award seems to be some sort of uber "Best Journal" award that does not, in fact, reward those most deserving of an award that is supposed to recognize contributions to the community. Had I said nothing, I'm sure you'd be calling me a hypocrite about now, wouldn't you?

I'm really tired of your sniping, Jim. I don't care if you keep picking at me -- although honestly, don't you have a novel to write or something? But on behalf of my readers, who in their 15,000-some odd posts to this forum have revealed themselves to be intelligent, thoughful, opinionated, contentious, or just plain ornery, I resent the fact that you keep calling them sheep. On the contrary, I think I have one of the most diverse and opinionated collections of readers that you're likely to find in the journaling scene.

For someone who thinks so little of online journals, who has ended his own, and who claims that he has better things to do than read mine, you certainly seem to spend a lot of time here. I don't pretend to understand your agenda or why you're so goddamned obsessed with me, but I wish you'd get over it.

For what it's worth, if Jen didn't vote for the person Rob told her to vote for, then she also didn't vote for the person I urged her to vote for, since we were both endorsing Ryan.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Once the awards are criticized, they mean less if you win. Because, any negative opinion of the awards takes away from their total subjective value.

This is why, we should just launch a stick upside the head of the non- winners. Now take it like a man (or a woman). If you don't get a lump on the side of the head, consider yourself the objective winner of the process because that's the best you can hope for.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

So, it's subversive to try to swing the votes against you, but not subversive to try to swing the votes toward you. How about if you're not a finalist, and you endorse a certain candidate? Is that subversive? I'm not saying that trying to swing the votes toward another finalist is not subversive, but I don't understand how one of these is subversive and another isn't. They are all attempting to "subvert" the votes one way or another. Your definiton of subverting the votes seems to be dependent on which way said subversive party is attempting to subvert the votes. That makes no sense to me.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

But that's just the thing: I don't think Ryan should win. From my perspective, Beth should win. Beth's journal and forum have meant far, far more to me in terms of influence and enjoyment than anything of Ryan's ever has. That's my perspective. Beth's perspective is different. It's just a bummer when the finalists use their position to (attempt to) influence the vote, no matter how good their intentions.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Jim and Dave-

Here's why I disagree with you here:

If I'm up for a big award with two other people, and the other nominees go public and tell all their fans that I'm the most deserving candidate and to vote for me, I'm incredibly honored. It's no small think when those who are considered your peers by the nominating committee effectively stand aside and proclaim you as the rightful owner of the prize. I'm actually more impressed with that than with the people who wait until they're up on the stage making their victory speech to proclaim their relative unworthiness.

It doesn't make the award any less valuable because my competition thinks I should get the honor. Why would it?

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Jenna: When you're playing hocky it's okay to attempt to put the puck in the opponents' net. It's "subversive" to attempt to put it in your own net.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

My God, a few lines in between clipping my toenails and writing a chapter and I'm goddamn obsessed. Beth, is everyone who disagrees with you goddamn obsessed? And don't pretend you don't know why I frequent here. I didn't say a word here in months until you took a cheap shot at me. I figure if somebody's going to be taking shots at me I might as well be present when it happens.

As for your readers, I'll no more kiss their asses as I will yours. If they act like lemmings, completely changing their stances on things depending on who is the speaker (or beggar, as the case may be), you can bet I'll tell it like I see it. You don't like it? Censor me, Nazi.

So far, in all the issues I've brought up, until now you've never answered anything except in half-witted one line jabs and complaints I've been "sniping" you.

As for the Ryan issue, I don't remember you saying any of that stuff you brought up. I must have gotten bad grades in stalker school.

Sorry if I made you cry, Beth, but I figured, with the way you and Rob have been known to go after people, especially me, you guys ought to be able to take it a little too.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

I don't think you can fairly insist that people who make a hobby of daily expressing their opinions NOT express an opinion in this case, when there is no 'opt in' policy about being nominated or made finalist. This isn't a contest or award where you sign up if you're interested, and with no opportunity to decline (with whatever agreements go along with accepting), a flat "IF it happens to you, we don't care what reasons you may have - stop expressing your opinions so we can give you this damn award for quality expression of your opinions!"

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

You mean the way I censor all those other people who post here, Jim?

Jesus, I am tired of reading about what a forum nazi I am, about all the people I ban, all the messages I delete, all the dissent I quash with my evil dictatorial hand. The two -- count 'em, two -- people who have been banned on this forum have been banned because they drove everybody nuts, not because they disagreed with me.

For those who are confused, my "cheap shot" at Jim consisted of a joke about Jack Saunders being a character created by Jim, which was based on a distinct similarity in writing style. I don't actually think they are the same person. Jack showed up at about the same time Jim ended his journal, and they certainly do write in a very similar style. I didn't really see the joke as character assassination, but I think they both disagreed. In retrospect, I can see why Jack was offended.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Dave-

I like the analogy (how long until hockey season starts up again?), but there's a difference between a hockey game and these awards. In hockey, the purpose is to win games (and the Stanley Cup). At the highest level, the whole point of playing the game is to hoist the trophy at the end of the season. At least, we hope that's the case.

I don't think Journallers necessarily have that same sense of focus on these awards that hockey players do on the scoreboard. As I've seen on some of the other threads (both here and elsewhere), people begin online journals for a zillion different reasons. If one of those reasons is not "To win the legacy award before 2001", I don't think it's the equivlent of putting the puck into the wrong net to endorse someone else.

(btw, here in Washington we have unfond memories of Esa Tikkanen doing the whole puck-in-your-own-net thing during the playoffs, so I know how unappreciated that is).

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

There was a real live sentence stuck somewhere in the middle of that muddled thought, honest! Never, EVER post when a seven year old is showing you a frog.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Baa. Baa. Baa. Baa. Baa.

You know, I think that there ought to be an addenum to the 'Hitler Rule of Usenet', specifically for this forum.

It would go something like this: the first post by anyone other than Beth to suggest that Beth's readers are, ..."minions, brainwashed and emotionally blackmailed by me into doing whatever [she] tell's you to do?" is the post that ends the thread.

It would be called the Jonestown Rule.

Oh, and Jen? I am sorry about that bitchy remark I posted here about the US elections. Obviously, I should stay away from the computer before I have my morning caffeine.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Sorry if I made you cry, Beth, but I figured, with the way you and Rob have been known to go after people, especially me, you guys ought to be able to take it a little too.

Yeah, Beth and I have been so chummy all this time. We are no doubt collarborating on our every entry, including those a few months ago where we were calling eachother names. What an elaborate ruse!

You point me to where I ever tried to silence you in any way, Jim. If giving my response to your statement is somehow sticking a sock in your mouth, then that is entirely your issue. If you want to state your opinions without any rebuttal, I suggest you start your journal back up.

Go after you? That's an interesting way to look at replying to your posts. And again, dead wrong...

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Are you guys actually reading your own posts? No one's making sense anymore.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Mike: It is the equivalent of putting the puck in your own net in that it spoils the show. Lynda said we can't expect these people to hold their opinions. Rob has said he would not feel right not speaking up. I'm just saying the expression of those opinions has a price. Instead of holding a vote, we're apparently having a coronation.

Of course Rob and Beth will say that's as it should be. I do not agree. Yeah, I still have my vote, but it feels futile.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Are you guys actually reading your own posts? No one's making sense anymore.

Keflabbuh jimabba la woot? Fram zababbah toofin. Yo.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Meh.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Jeez, when I left this forum last night it was happily congratulating itself on being a No-Shit-Talkin'-Awards-Quarter.

You guys do stay up late talking 'bout stuff.

cheers an early morning Anna

(by the way, no elections down here, either. But we're having fun snortling at the US version of it).

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

If people were allowed to decline their nominations, this wouldn't be a problem.

However, this thread has gotten me thinking... if people could decline nominations in this round, I could see Rob and Beth (and many others, I'm sure) declining their nominations for the Legacy Award and saying "give it to Ryan!" Then there's a potential backlash against the one person who eventually says, "Okay, I'll give Ryan a run for his money!"

What I'm getting at is-- for the first time, I can see why letting people decline the nominations might cause some problems.

In this case, I have no problem with Rob and Beth expressing that they think Ryan is deserving of the award. Although I can see Dave's point in principle, and although I love Rob's and Beth's sites, I think this is one award that Ryan is long overdue for, and should certainly win.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

In this case, I have no problem with Rob and Beth expressing that they think Ryan is deserving of the award.

Jesus, thank you. I can't believe I'm catching shit for saying that someone else is more deserving of this award, even considering the source...

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

No, Jen, you probably didn't, but I bet you voted for who Beth wanted you to.

-- Jim Valvis (jvalvis@hotmail.com), August 09, 2000.

Whoa. Slow down there, hotshot. I dig Beth and all, but I have not allowed Beth access to my motor control and thought processes, but thank you so much for thinking so.

I looked at the three journals. I considered the length of their runs, the contributions they've made to the journalling scene, and I threw in a dollop of personal interest - which did I like best? And then, I thought "Okay, who's the cutest?" And then I thought "Okay, who mailed me the check first?"

That last was a joke. And the second to last? That was a joke too. Just so we're all on the same page.

But the point is: if I had voted for Ryan, it wouldn't have been because I was urged to. It would have been because I thought he was the worthiest.

And the cutest.

When one of the finalists says "I don't want the award" or "vote for somebody else" it ruins the game for *all* the players. It's the same as taking the ball and going home.

Uh, no, it's someone saying "this is who I think is the best person to win. I've looked at the choices, and so the fuck what if I'm among them? This person is still the best person to win."

I don't think anyone can deny that part of the process has become the gossiping and the discussing and the revealing of personal votes. Therefore, it's not subversive to discuss the awards, even if you're nominated for one. It's the expression of an opinion! God Bless America!

oops! Getting USentric again.

Kristin: absolutely no problem! You were right 'bout Americans. About this one, anyone. Cosmopolitan as I'd like to think I am, I sometimes forget there's a world outside of the states (a world that looks at us, blinks and shakes its head, for sure).

No Jenna, it is not a "subversion of the award process" to ask people to vote for you. That's playing the game as it should be played. (Although diarist.net says it is discouraged.)

Nah. That's tacky. It's for writing, not public office. Bad form to say "my writing's better than yours, so ha!"

Much as some of us soooo want to say it. Snicker.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

I looked at the three journals. I considered the length of their runs, the contributions they've made to the journalling scene, and I threw in a dollop of personal interest - which did I like best? And then, I thought "Okay, who's the cutest?"

Aw, man. That's how I lose every time...

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

I honestly wonder if this discussion would have become this substantial had Dave said to begin with that he thought Beth was the more deserving candidate for the Legacy Award, and that he thought it was a shame that she was essentially campaigning against herself because he would have liked to see her win. At least, that's the sense I've gotten from his posts.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Oh, wait, the cutest?

So, I won, right? Yes? Cool. Thanks!

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

No, wait. I vote for me for the cutest. What the fuck was I thinking?

Pamie, you can have "littlest and sweetest." Good? Or is that too girlie?

I'll have to go see if I can dig up a trophy that reads "Bitchin'est."

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

I wanted "littlest and sweetest". I do drive a girly car, you know.

I have a feeling this is killing this thread. Is that a bad thing?

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Rob, you can have "bendo lovingist."

Yes. I think, after a brief flare-up, it may well be dead. Dammit. We didn't even get to say mean things about the other category nominees.

Anyone?

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Yes. I think, after a brief flare-up, it may well be dead. Dammit. We didn't even get to say mean things about the other category nominees.

Anyone?

Um, I hear that Beth is a booger eater. And Ryan sniffs his armpits a lot. Yep. Nasty people, I know.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

I like to eat burned toast and mayonnaise with peanut butter. Is that disgusting enough?--Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Al,

I think you won. Yuck.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

No way ... I had a peanut butter, mayo, and tomato sandwich just the other day. Mmmmmm.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

"As for your readers, I'll no more kiss their asses as I will yours. If they act like lemmings, completely changing their stances on things depending on who is the speaker (or beggar, as the case may be), you can bet I'll tell it like I see it. You don't like it? Censor me, Nazi."

Jim, if you honestly feel Beth is a nazi and all her readers are lemmings, but you continue to read and post to this forum, then you're pretty sad, in my opinion. If it were me, I'd be staying away from people I held in such distain.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

I'm probably totally missing something here (something like "but being irrational and irritating IS fun!"), but my take on the whole awards thing is this:

If you don't like the game, DON'T PLAY.

What on earth is the point of doggedly trying to make the whole topic miserable for everyone else? Beth and Rob are entitled to their opinions, and it would (as someone else pointed out) be totally unlike them to avoid expressing their thoughts. Isn't that why we read them, after all?

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

I was really happy to see One Woman Focus Group nominated for her guest entry to Thought Experiment. Because a) Heather rocks, and I'm glad to see her recognized and b) she was able to communicate the sort of feeling you get when a friend supports you with the perfect actions because they know you well enough to know you don't respond well to sympathy talks--doing that in an e-mail is pretty impressive! (sorry for the run-on sentence. yikes.)

Anyway, if you haven't seen it, you should check it out!

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

Administrative Announcement

This isn't going to make me any friends with the folks who think I'm a forum nazi, but Jim Valvis has been informed that he isn't welcome on this board. I assume that many of you, and Jim, will assume that I told him to get lost because he disagrees with me on quite a number of issues. The truth is I've reached the point where I don't think I really need to put up with that level of crap directed my way on a forum that I go to the trouble to maintain. If he wants to talk about me, he has other forums in which he may do so.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, The Forum Nazi.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

Nazi Lady: I was quite enjoying the smackdown, but agree that his attacks were becoming personal - and this is something that no one should be expected to deal with.

But then, I'm a mindless puppet, so I will agree with whatever you say. Ubbah. Slurp.

But back on topic, has anyone else noticed that the majority of the entry nominations are very, very recent? From the tail end of the open nominations process?

Is this because we're lazy and we keep forgetting to bookmark entries each quarter? Or do journallers only write well when they know the nominations are going on?

Discuss.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

I always forget the good entries I read early in the nominations period. I assume everyone else does, too. This quarter I finally made a bookmark folder for entries that I want to remember at the end of the quarter. I've already added two entries (one of Kymm's, and one of Sara's).

I know other folks do something similar ... it seems like a good idea. There is just no way you can remember three months worth of good entries unless you keep a list.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

Elections in Canada and Australia? I thought they had a king.

Harold
wonderland 2
http://www.fukushu.com/wonderland2/

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

I always keep a bookmark file. I am the diarist awards bookmark file goddess. :) And I do notice most of the entries are from the tail end of the process. Just like the Academy Awards, isn't it? I'm going to start saving all my good entries for November.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2000

Monique, Beth, and I thought the award-nomination folder was merely a crazed product of the Virgo mind.

And Harold - you are just sooooo out of date - we haven't had a king for nearly fifty years. So there. Sheesh, a KING? what's with that???

we do, however, share a queen.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

. . . although honestly (Jim), don't you have a novel to write or something?

I dunno, Beth. I have a feeling the title, plot, and content of that novel will be "Nothing, By Jim Valvis"

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000

Damn it. I have, like, three nominees already for the romantic entry. NOBODY WRITE ANYTHING ROMANTIC FOR THE NEXT THREE MONTHS. Okay? Is that cool? Or if you do, make it funny. Or rant. Something like that.

Oh, yeah, I got my first rant nominee, too. Y'all are going to have to slow down on the good stuff.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2000