[Tim Murphy]

Blind is kind of ridiculous here. I haven't seen Film Noir workshopped, but I know damn well who wrote it. And Crawford pretty well does away with the issue on Mower's Song. Cathy and Gail have performed splendidly, and I know how much work it was for me to handle 140 entries, let alone this much larger volume.

[Nigel Mace]

This is all getting rather silly. I distinctly recall advice, later generally approved, being given to intending participants that "in adjudicated poetry events like this, it's a good idea to Google the judges, to get an inkling of their taste by seeing what kind of stuff they write themselves." In other words the personal predelictions of judges do affect the outcome - and - if that is true of their creative tastes in the positive sense, it is also, inevitably, though they be as Caesar's wife, likely to be true in the negative sense as well. Nothing personal about it. So no aspersions are being cast on our judges; it is just generally regarded as being better in such circumstances for submissions to literary judges to be 'blind'.

As a personal note, I don't myself believe in Googling judges' works as a guide, for if one does, one is writing for a competetive purpose and not simply to see what others may think of what one really wants to write. My policy has never done me any good - but I'd rather fail on my own terms.

[Cyn Neely]

Tim, who the hell is saying they DIDN'T do a wonderful, incredible job?

Blind is not ridiculous and I think that it is ridiculous to say it is ridiculous (LOL - joking here because this argument is getting ridiculous because it is not supposed to be an argument but a discussion about future contests and I think I even saw a note from Alex inviting it) There are a lot of entries in bake-offs that were not workshopped here. Not to mention that people "guessing" who wrote something is way different than "knowing" who wrote it.
Anyway, I *thought* a discussion weighed the pros and cons and I was weighing in on what I thought might be some pros to blind judging. But perhaps this would best be continued in another thread so that it does not seem as if this discussion is relating specifically to THIS bake off. (because to me it is not)

[Alex Pepple]

I feel I should step in here since there seems to be no end to posts on this issue. Blind judging already been discussed ad nauseum. Cathy & Gail have provided responses to several of these types of comments and insinuations earlier on. And I have also provided related responses indicating that this was NOT designed to be a blindly judged event, and that while we acknowledge that blind judging is desirable where feasible, bake-off rules change with each bake-off. And indeed, this may not be the last non blindly judged back-off.

Really, how many more times is the issue of blind judging going to be rehashed and responded to? So, I don't think Cathy is being hyper-sensitive, as has been alleged, in her last comment on this. I mean, how many more times do you have to beat her & Gail on the head with the same point, and then just expected them to just sit there and take it? I can lay the counter charge that the hyper-sensitivity and overreaction cuts both ways given the incessant posts and insinuations aimed at how this event was or was not run ... with the judges, especially, in crosshairs of the volleys.

Again, it's been asked, discussed, opined on again and again ... and also responded to again and again. Any more posts/comments/hinted or overt allegations of such nature just become tedious, irritating and counter-productive.

Cheers,
...Alex

[R. Nemo Hill]

I think you are wrong, Alex.
And I think it my right to say so.

Exit Nemo.

[Alex Pepple]

Nemo - I just don't see it your way, especially, on the hyper-sensitivity allegation against Cathy. So, let's just agree to disagree.

[Cyn Neely]

and since I am the one being accused of doing the beating, I am insulted by this post Alex.

No one reads every post on this site. No one reads every post on a thread. It may have been rehashed ad nauseum, but I didn't read it. If I inadvertently stepped in something I was supposed to avoid (without knowing it), that is not a crime, just a mistake.

I do believe Cathy's response to me was inappropriate as I never once said they judged poorly. (in fact just the opposite) And I have the right to say that her response to me was not appropriate . Just as Nemo has the right to say it. Don't I have the right to voice my opinion about blind judging? In fact I felt opinions were invited by this comment from you Alex: I and future hosts and DGs will make every effort to run blindly judged bake-offs given the preference for such...
I was stating my preference and why. (yes I realize it won't always be possible)

Good thing I will be on an island and out of contact for the most part of the summer. By the time I am back maybe I'll have forgotten all about this. For now, I feel pretty much like a persona non grata. But thanks for trying Nemo.

[Cyn Neely]

it's over 100 degrees here today - so I apologize for an quick tempered tone in my above reply. I still stand by *what* I said though.

[Alex Pepple]

Cynthia - the post was general and not directed at you specifically -- after all, yours was only one the many interminable such posts. So, apologies if you feel specifically targeted--that's not the case or intention. I was merely trying to show, in light of all the other previous posts on that very same issue, the reasons for Cathy's response.

Cheers,
...Alex

[coming back to add that and it looks like we cross-posted!]

[David Anthony]

Well, obviously, contests should be judged blind. It's not a gold standard, it's just normal practice nowadays.
I'm so sorry to see Gail and Cathy in the eye of a storm. It's no fault of theirs, and it will discourage talented people from acting as judges in future.
What a can of worms.
David