BooktubeSFF Awards discussion

note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archived (2016) > Changes to Existing Categories

Comments Showing 1-4 of 4 (4 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Nicole (new)

Nicole (nicolepo) | 107 comments This thread is for concrete discussion about rule changes to existing categories in the booktubeSFF Awards. If you post off topic or irrelevant comments in this thread, I will delete them. If you want to suggest or speculate about rule changes that might work, but don't have a concrete topic to discuss, please post the suggestion in the Suggestions for the Future thread. If you would like to propose a new category, do so in the New Categories thread.

If you are proposing a new rule change, format your post as follows:
1) Proposal Statement - I would like to make x change to y existing category.
2) The new rule as it would appear on the voting ballot or website
3) Details of change (if not covered by the proposal statement.)
4) Rational - explain why you want to change the existing category. What do you think this change will add to the category or what existing issue do you think it will fix.
5) Potential drawbacks to the change - what might go wrong if this change is implemented?
6) How the new change would be implemented - if you are able to respond to the potential drawbacks by having the judges perform some specific action, explain that here.

If you are responding to a change someone else proposed, format your post as follows:
1) Proposal Statement - include the proposal statement from the change you are responding to
2) Thesis statement of your post - If you support the proposal, don't support the proposal, are asking for clarification, or would support the proposal if it was changed to resolve a specific issue, but don't currently support the proposal, state that right away. At the top of your post.
3) Explanation of your position - please keep this as informative and brief as possible.

If you are responding to a response:
1) Proposal Statement and who you are responding to - yes, hitting the reply button is fine, but make sure this information is clear at the top of your post.
2) Thesis statement (must include,) including your position on the original rule change (if you created the original rule change or the discussion is on going it's fine to omit this)
3) Explanation of your position - kept informative and brief.

Repeat as needed.

If you proposed a change and would now like to modify your proposal based on feedback, post the new proposal in the same format as above. Return to your original post and edit it to indicate there is an updated form of the proposal below (do not delete original proposal, merely note that it is updated below.)

As with all changes to the BooktubeSFF Awards rules, bear in mind that someone has to implement the change you propose. As of right now, that someone will likely be me, Elizabeth, and the other judges, but especially me. Do not be surprised if I push back on your proposal and ask for clarification. It is important for your proposal to be as fully fleshed out as possible in order to implement it.

Note: this thread is heavily moderated. If you are off topic even a little, I will warn you and/or delete your post. The purpose of this thread is to discuss and create rule changes for the awards. Do NOT derail it, provide an incomplete proposal, or incomprehensible post. You have been warned.

message 2: by Nicole (new)

Nicole (nicolepo) | 107 comments I would like to change what qualifies in the Short Works category from works under 150 pages to works under 150 pages or 40,000 words.

The eligibility rules for the best short work category would read as follows:
"Best Short Work eligible works are:
1) Shorter than 150 pages or under 40,000 words
2) Less than 50% illustrations, pictures, or other visual medium"

The Best Novel and Best Young Adult Novel eligibility rules would also be changed to read as follows:
"1) Longer than 150 pages and 40,000 words"

40,000 words is the length of a novella as defined by the Hugo and Nebula awards and is typically how publishers define a novella in their marketing. We decided to use page count as many readers do not know the word count of a specific work and it is a difficult metric to look up. However, because adding pictures, novel formatting, author's notes, and other extras to novellas is becoming an increasingly common practice, they do not always fall under 150 pages. By changing the what qualifies in the category, I anticipate that all works marketed as novellas will now be eligible in the Short Works Category as originally intended.

The drawback of this change is that it may cause confusion for nominators who do not routinely read short fiction. This may lead to an increase in works being mis-categorized into either of the Best Novel Categories when they are really short works, or into short works when they are really novels.

In practice, the phrasing of the rules would still leave all categories mutually exclusive. Resolution of mis-categorized works would be up to the judges. To resolve this, I would suggest the following steps for works which might be mis-categorized: 1) check on book seller and publisher websites if the work is being sold and marketed as a novella or full length novel. 2) If in doubt, leave the work in the category nominators have placed it in. 3) If nominators disagree on the appropriate category (i.e. a work has been nominated in multiple categories by different nominators,) poll the judges.

message 3: by Paul (new)

Paul (paul_sff) | 70 comments Replying to Nicole about:

Changing short works to include works shorter than 150 pages or under 40,000 words.

I 100% support this proposal.

Even though there is a drawback of possible mis-categorization it is also an opportunity for people to learn popular short fiction terminology and guidelines that are used as an industry standard.

message 4: by Kaitlin (new)

Kaitlin (kool_kat_kitty) | 110 comments Mod
Replying to Nicole about:

Changing short works to include works shorter than 150 pages or under 40,000 words.

I also support this. I think some of the potential nominees this year were excluded from our current rule set due to excessive images, editorial notes etc and would like to see this changed for next year.

I also think that the proposal of how to combat the possible drawbacks works well and would be happy to act as you have suggested with works being checked with publisher websites and judges if problems arise.

back to top
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.