[Marcia Karp]

The new restriction doesn't make sense to me. Since you mention only finalists, you aren't worried about the initial and final judges.

As for members, why might they not recognize a poem or a style from the board? And some are friends off-Sphere and read each others' work. During every bakeoff poems are recognized, and while it is too bad people give hints as to the author (one of whom identifies himself on occasion), how does that affect the blind choosing, which takes place during the pre-posting stages?

Is the change of rules at this point really necessary or even a way to increase fairness?

Best,
Marcia

[Lois Elaine Heckman]

Marcia is right on one point. However, I differ with her reasoning on another.

Since many members know each other, and each other’s way of writing, subject matter, etc., a certain author could sometimes be evident (or at least plausible), by the style of a poem or its wording. That is unavoidable, so it should be our responsibility not to mention names on the board and spoil the fun for everyone else.

Rather than eliminate the rule, though, if possible, it should also involve the initial phases, because judges can Google, too, and be influenced by that. (Which means that the blind judging would no longer be so). If no readily recognizable poems were admissible, they could be weeded out and exchanged at the beginning, which would also mean that no one would have to substitute a poem after arriving in the finals, when that would be harder on the poet.

Of course this is just an idea, and it could very well mean a great deal more work on the part of the DG and Alex. That was not my intention. I was only looking for equity among participants, as such a blind/blind contest should offer. Perhaps a simple gentle(wo)man’s agreement from the judge not to Google any poems would be sufficient and satisfy everyone!

[Alex Pepple]

Marcia - it's one thing for a few recognizing one of the finalists from a post at the Sphere or from a print journal or the author's book, and it's another altogether for a finalist to be readily available on Google, with the author identity instantly disclosed to all with just a simple Google query. And even with all the fine-tuning, it's still won't be a perfectly anonymous system unless we make the DG make a sworn declaration that he/she didn't recognize any of the finalists ... and even then, a statistical probability of perjury still hangs over the proceedings. And what of those who didn't make the finals? Were there some who were recognized and consequently disadvantaged? ... etc. etc. So, we can fine-tune to increase overall anonymity across the board, but it will be foolish to expect a perfect system, especially, for a contest run on the goodwill of the DG/Host/organizers as a Sphere bake-off.

...Alex

[Marcia Karp]

Dear Alex,

You've misunderstood me. The arguments you make against my post are the arguments I was actually making. I never suggested it was possible to have absolute fairness, rather the opposite. I wouldn't have said anything, except that this is contrary to what you said you wanted -- "The point of including previously published poems is to increase the overall quality of the submissions received" -- and that the change of the rules in the middle of the thing is unfair without there being a balancing gain.

Best,
Marcia

[Alex Pepple]

Hi Marcia,

OK, since we're almost in agreement then, the answer is, yes, we're still going to include previously published poems. The only slight tweak is that if that published poem is readily googleable (is that a word?) and it's a finalist, then the poet will be given the chance to send in a replacement poem (which may or may not make the final). So, if what you sent in is published and readily googleable (meaning readily googleable without prior knowledge of the author's name, in other words, you can readily find it when you Google without including your name as the author), then, just send me a replacement now, and I'll the DG ignore your previous submission and consider the replacement instead. Sorry for tweaking the rules mid-stream, but Lois just brought to the fore something I'd concerned with all along, and I think it's not too late to tweak and address it now.

Cheers,
...Alex

[Martin Elster]

Alex - what about what Lois said. Would this work?

Originally Posted by Lois Elaine Heckman

Perhaps a simple gentle(wo)man’s agreement from the judge not to Google any poems would be sufficient and satisfy everyone!

[Michael Cantor]

The problem with Lois's suggestion is that everybody else will google anyway - it's the only sin some of us have left - and you'll end up with hints and whispers scattered through the comments, and it will color the readings. I like the idea of not posting if it's google-able.

[E. Shaun Russell]

I guess this underscores how in the future, it might be best to just restrict it to unpublished work. I don't think we've had a problem with quality in the recent past, and personally I don't think that just because a work has been published means it's necessarily of "high quality." At least a couple of my "big" publication credits were so-so poems that just resonated with the publication's editor.

In bakeoffs, I always prefer complete anonymity. I won't be doing any Googling of posted poems, and am hopeful that folks won't pepper the threads with comments about the authors. (It's a vain hope, I know).

[Ann Drysdale]

"'Too late', she said, almost inaudibly, her lower lip trembling as she stood in the middle of the suddenly unlevel playing field, wishing she could remember where the goalposts had been when she kicked the ball."

The sound I mentioned in Post 11 has now been replaced by another, initiated by Post 25: the repeated squeaking of my favourite chair as I rock distractedly back and forward, humming and chewing an oldfashioned clothes-peg.

I thought all published poems were potentially Googlable and, Heaven forgive me, I didn't care.

[Marybeth Rua-Larsen]

Nevermind.