[Jayne Osborn]

"No entrant may win more than one prize"

Is there a good reason for this rule? If there is, I can't see it; the poems are judged on merit, after all.

If you submitted five poems, say, to a competition and the judge just happened to like two of them enough to give them a place, why shouldn't you be awarded 1st and 2nd prizes, or 2nd and 3rd if another poem was rated higher, or even 1st and 3rd?

If the above rule is followed, the judge is not being true to his or her original decision. After discovering the name of the author they would then presumably have to demote one of the poems in favour of one they liked less.

(When John Whitworth and I judged a comp together for two years we didn't include that rule... and someone did win two prizes one year, if my memory serves me correctly.)

Jayne

[Max Goodman]

A judge's perception of merit is largely a product of her taste. Liking one poem by a given poet makes it probable she will like others. Another judge will favor a different poet's poems. True merit comes into play (if the judge has skill, she won't choose a bad poem), but so does luck. Making the judge choose a poem by a different poet for each prize puts each entrant slightly less at the mercy of this luck.

It seems a reasonable rule to me--but others' taste in rules will differ.

[Michael Cantor]

Max's reply makes sense to me. Judges aren't perfect - they have quirks and favorite approaches and styles just like the rest of us. Any time you appoint a judge, you are - to some extent - skewing the judging in advance in favor of one group or another, depending on the judge's predispositions. (I assume you's agree, Jayne, that any contest is a crap shoot - there is no "best" poem - it depends on the judge.) Limiting every entrant to one award is a logical step toward limiting the influence of the Judge's specific taste, of smoothing the contest.

In other words - what Max said. (I didn't realize, as I wrote this, how closely I paralleled his remarks.) You can judge contests I enter whenever you want, Max.

Just out of curiousity, Jayne - what prompted this?

[Brian Allgar]

Jayne, that rule certainly doesn't apply to the Flash 500 competition, where Martin Parker recently won two of the prizes, and before that there was a quarter when Melanie Branton won all three.

And where would Bazza, Chris, and sometimes even myself, be if multiple wins (admittedly pseudonymous) weren't allowed? Starving in the gutter, that's where!

I don't buy the "It helps to counterract the judge's own preference" argument. "Judged on their merits" should mean just that, and I don't think that "positive discrimination" is any more desirable in this context than elsewhere.

[Wintaka]

I agree with you, Jayne. If there is any hint that judges will choose based on style rather than merit, get better judges.

Wanting to limit entrants to one prize may be a good reason for a one-piece-per-participant rule but, as I see it, once you allow multiple entries, you have, in essence, allowed multiple prizes. Otherwise, you are not treating all entry fees equally.

-o-

[Chris O'Carroll]

Although I hear the siren song of Max and Michael's argument, I'm going to steer my ship in Wintaka's direction for now. If there's a one-prize-per-person limit, then there ought to be a one-entry-per-person limit as well. This applies particularly to contests that charge a fee. There's no justice in accepting multiple entries, collecting the multiple fees, then declaring some paid entries ineligible for any prize.

[Melanie Branton]

Originally Posted by Chris O'Carroll

If there's a one-prize-per-person limit, then there ought to be a one-entry-per-person limit as well. This applies particularly to contests that charge a fee. There's no justice in accepting multiple entries, collecting the multiple fees, then declaring some paid entries ineligible for any prize.

I see your point, but I must admit I felt very embarrassed the time I won all three prizes, as I felt that the judge concerned clearly had a bias towards my style and I was worried that other contestants would view me as a smug git for the rest of recorded time.

When I enter multiple entries, it's in the hope that one of them will catch the judge's eye, not in the hope of multiple prizes.

[Tim Love]

Wintake wrote "If there is any hint that judges will choose based on style rather than merit, get better judges."

I doubt that there are judges equally adept at assessing (say) Flarf, Wendy Cope, LangPo, Ginsburg, Prynne, comedy, haiku, Holub, Olds, etc. Putting up with judges' blind-spots is all part of the game. I think the one-prize limit helps in a PR sense at least. But I think it would be fairer if the entry fee money were returned to prizewinners for any extra poems of theirs that didn't/couldn't win.

[Jayne Osborn]

Thanks for your thoughts on this Max, Michael, Brian, Colin, Chris, Melanie and Tim. Some very interesting points have been made!

Firstly, to answer Michael's question as to what prompted this: I've thought about it for years but I noticed that it's one of the rules in the ''Sonnet or Not'' comp, and I'm just intrigued that some competitions employ the rule and others don't, indicating that opinion is divided.

It's not a major issue with me (it hasn't ever stopped me entering a competition, for instance) but I have to say I prefer the rule not to be there!

Melanie, there's no need to feel embarrassed at winning three prizes. Well done!
All the entries that are selected by the judge ought to get the prizes, in my opinion. Rejecting a chosen poem after the identity of the poet is revealed just isn't fair on the entrant OR the judge and is usually done by the administrator(s):
"Sorry, you can't choose that one -- you'll have to pick another poem now, that you didn't like as much." Hmm...

Chris makes an excellent case here (as did Colin, similarly): "There's no justice in accepting multiple entries, collecting the multiple fees, then declaring some paid entries ineligible for any prize."

And so does Tim, here: "I think it would be fairer if the entry fee money were returned to prizewinners for any extra poems of theirs that didn't/couldn't win."

I was going to make a further observation but I'll save it for later... this is enough for now!

[W.F. Lantry]

Jayne,

Usually, such rules come about as a result of some past difficulty. It's easy to imagine the difficulty in this case, in fact, I have personal experience of a similar situation. One time, Kate sent off multiple entries to some state-wide competition. They asked for categories, so she just labeled them according to whatever category seemed to fit. They didn't announce the winners in advance... one was supposed to show up at the dinner. But it was a long drive, and at the last minute something came up... life gets in the way.

Long story short, we won in several categories, and weren't even there to accept the honors (thank goodness, in retrospect: it would have been embarrassing). The whole thing caused some small consternation... and a mutual decision to not send to such contests anymore.

There *is* one rule I'd like to see more widespread: the judge should not know the winner. I remember a chapbook contest a few years back. Kate sent things off, and in the time between sending and the announcement we met the judge at some other event. He later wrote me a nice note, saying he recognized the poems, and had to disqualify me. Would that all judges were so honorable, and had his sense of ethics! The world might be a better place...

Best,

Bill