Plenty of voters in each contest, so why are the one or two missing voters an issue that is worth a 3 page thread
It isn't one or two missing voters over the year, and it wasn't intended as a 3 page thread. When I do the statistics I also detail those who have been kind enough to vote without taking part, who in my view are to be thanked. Invariably in the past I've then gone on to remind people that since we want as many votes as possible, please to try and remember to vote when a participant, and how upsetting it is when some members seem not to respect their fellow storytellers by repeatedly failing to vote. Rather than repeat myself yet again in a stats post, I thought I'd put it into a separate thread which I'd then sticky where those who don't bother with the stats might see it.
By the same token, why is anyone subjecting submissions to word counts and then getting
@Pyan involved to judge whether a hyphen is concealing a 76th word - which will require that entry to be summarily disqualified (rather than fixed)?
The Challenges had word limits from the start, as that was the whole point of the exercise. We actually didn't count the stories to begin with, nor did we have rules as such (but then we only expected it to last a few months at most) and we quickly found it was necessary to have more structure, and I very much doubt the Challenges would have lasted as long if we hadn't done so. Some people are careless, some people deliberately push boundaries, some people cheat. And other people get p*ssed off and resentful. Not the best atmosphere for longevity.
If we allow someone to take part with a 76 word story in a 75 word contest, irritating others who scrupulously keep to the limit, where then do we draw the line? Do we allow someone to go up to 80 words or 100 or even higher? We debated what to do and the simple answer was we enforce the limit that's given. We also debated what to do with those who breached the limit eg should someone be allowed to amend a story and repost. But the injustice to those who've kept to the rule and aren't allowed to repost or amend the stories afterwards meant the simple answer was to remove the story.
We don't like to disqualify stories, so we urge people to check word count, and as mods we're always happy to help people fix matters before the stories are posted or within the one-hour editing window.
Enforcement is not the mindset of creativity and fun. ... Creative people sometimes don't act exactly as you want them to, and maybe that should be a little more tolerated in general?
If anyone wants to set up an fully anarchic no-rules anything-goes Challenge, then Workshop is there and waiting.
If not voting is a big deal, the staff could DQ anyone who doesn't vote - just like they DQ anyone who screws up word count. "Problem" solved.
Believe me, that's been suggested, and not by mods. Even if we were to think it reasonable, it's patently not feasible. We only know someone hasn't voted after the voting has ended -- long after if it's dependent on me doing the stats (which get done in my spare time) -- but even were we crazy enough to want more actual work as unpaid moderators, so someone goes over the voting the very next day, what do we do then? Disqualify the person's story from that Challenge? What happens to the votes s/he might have accumulated?
Alternatively, if the 1, 2 or 3 members who are regularly submitting without voting are known to staff, perhaps they could be prompted directly through PM?
This is already being considered. But this thread was to remind everyone to do their best to vote.
I just don't think non-voters are doing anything wrong. Entering and voting are both voluntary (at this point), so I wish that voluntary behavior was respected as such.
Voters are respected, which is why I thank those who vote and go out of my way to list and name those who do so without entering. But respect cuts both ways -- giving respect to one's fellow writers by reading their stories and voting when one can.
