MobileRead Discussion/Suggestion thread

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

Don't take the bait HIMS, we've had the "too many vs too few" classics argument every month for at least the last 4 months if not longer. Club votes dictated that the general consensus was to keep things as they are. So here we are.

Originally Posted by Nyssa

Ditto. It is not hard to picture the joke turning into another full fledged conversation. We've been there, done that, and got the t-shirt.

Originally Posted by Nyssa

To state that we've already had the conversation and to, hopefully, discourage its continuation. I'm sorry if you've chosen to take offense. You could do to take your own advice.

Originally Posted by Nyssa

I would also like to point out that classics have always been nominated and accepted in every genre for every month in this club. Not to mention that we also now have a seperate book club devoted entirely to Classics.
So it is perfectly reasonable to now have one of the "classic" months changed to something else.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I agree with you that the original poll should have run to it's conclusion and whatever the results were, that's what we should have gone with.

But it didn't, so we're left with the tie. You can't cite an earlier, uncompleted poll.

[Nyssa]

Originally Posted by issybird

Ah yes. Oh well. These things happen. I thought the conversation was done and then the floor was reopened in the proper thread and I took it.

Enjoy the laugh.

[ATDrake]

Since What Measure Is A Non-Classic seems to be the zombie discussion which Will Not Die and people complain about having to read dead authors, maybe the alternate selection category for October should be "Undead Authors".

It should be an interesting challenge to come up with enough qualifying nominations for authors whose works continued under their names after their deaths, via the excuse of someone "fleshing out" their "leftover notes and outlines" for that book which they like totally intended to write all along if that pesky mortality hadn't felled them, or just plain farmed out to a junior co-author whose glorified fanfic skillz just aren't up to it.

And given what some of the ghostwriters come up with as All-New! All-Different!* in long-established beloved worlds†, there's bound to be some overlap with the regular "Horror" theme of the month.

* Hope you survive the experience!

† Y HELO THAR, DARKOVER! And Pern. And Dune.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

We had a vote to decide what to do with classics. That's fine.

But what's not fine is that we had a vote on hidden vs. open voting and then we had a second vote on top of that.

So, what we need to do to make things more even/fair is either the second vote for hidden/open is nullified and it's all hidden or we have a tiered vote for classics and have a second vote for that.

It's unfair to have votes for changing things be completely different. The fair thing would be to have another classic vote-off with only the top two choice available.

So that would mean we could settle classics once and for all for 2012 and that would be fair.

BOTH VOTES SHOWED THE EXACT SAME RESULT: Half of the people wanted all hidden, the other half wanted the the vote to alternate between hidden and visible. Everyone else seems to understand this. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

[jgaiser]

This whole *discussion* is why I've completely given up on any of the book clubs. All I see is whining and complaining. It's long gone past the point of being enjoyable.

[sun surfer]

There is so much being discussed in this thread!

First, I want to say, regarding the hidden/open polls and the classics poll:

In the classics poll, the option for keeping both classics received a majority. Even if you added the other options together, they still wouldn't have equalled the same amount of votes as the winning option. There was never a need for a run-off vote because it had already proven to be the clear winner.

In the first hidden/open poll, the "always hidden" option had only received a plurality. It did not have a majority. If all the other options were added together, they would've equalled more than the votes for the leading option. So when Tom stopped the poll, a run-off was in order to determine what the majority wanted.

Besides that (even though that is enough), there is the idea that a compromise was possible on this issue at all times. It never had to be "winner take all" in that discussion. It's too late now since I was suggesting alternating as the simplest compromise, but another good compromise would've been to have a poll only between "hidden" and "open", with the percentage that each option received determining how many months that option got for 2012. I didn't suggest that because I thought alternating was simpler and I thought enough people would want to compromise for it to win and everyone be happy with it. I guess I was wrong.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

BOTH VOTES SHOWED THE EXACT SAME RESULT: Half of the people wanted all hidden, the other half wanted the the vote to alternate between hidden and visible. Everyone else seems to understand this. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

The voting for hidden/not hidden/partial hidden did not show 1/2 for anything. It showed the majority wanted hidden.

Yes, the other showed more wanted two classics. But if you use the same convoluted logic that got us to the second hidden vote, then we should have has a run off vote for classic or not without a third option.

So do we go with the first vote for both or do we have a second vote for classics?

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The voting for hidden/not hidden/partial hidden did not show 1/2 for anything. It showed the majority wanted hidden.

Yes, the other showed more wanted two classics. But if you use the same convoluted logic that got us to the second hidden vote, then we should have has a run off vote for classic or not without a third option.

So do we go with the first vote for both or do we have a second vote for classics?

Did you not read the post I wrote directly above your post or are you just being obstinate for the heck of it?

I'll reiterate: "always hidden" has never had a majority in either poll. It only had a plurality. Whereas "keeping two classics" won with a majority.

Definition of majority:

ma·jor·i·ty (m-jôr-t, -jr-)
n. pl. ma·jor·i·ties
1. The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.

It never had more than half in total (i.e. over 50%).

[JSWolf]

Look, do you know what a majority is? Hidden had more overall votes then any other option. Hidden had 17 and the others has less. You don't just counts the other options and add them together. Even so it was wrong. If you take alternating, you have to split it and 1/2 going to 1 and the other 1/2 going to the other. So really, no matter which way it can properly be done, the MAJORITY belongs to hidden.

[sun surfer]

That would be a plurality, Jon.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

... Not to mention that we also now have a seperate book club devoted entirely to Classics.

...

Just to nitpick, the other club is the "literary" book club, not the "classic" book club. For example, Unbroken won in the other club, and IMO, most people wouldn't consider Unbroken a classic.

[HomeInMyShoes]

"I think this is getting needlessly messianic." ~Fook

Having more than two options clouded the issue of actually determining what the majority may have wanted. We can't actually interpret much from the hidden or visible vote. We don't really know what the last two options mean in terms of hidden or visible in general.

I trust WT Sharpe, our messiah, to make a decision for us. I might disagree with their choice, but an Internet forum isn't a democracy and I don't expect it to be.

For transparency, I voted other and I made a joke about a convoluted visibility scheme because I don't actually care what the voting is for hidden/visible. I'd like multiple choice options because it might more accurately show which books are most likely to be read by members. In the end whatever will get more members involved in nominations and in reading and discussing chosen books is good for the book club.

[sun surfer]

There is still one final point that needs deciding for 2012: If a book becomes fully nominated, then it will be ineligible for six months.

I don't think it needs a vote, Tom can just decide. Tom, when I first suggested it, you asked what everyone thought and here were some of the responses:

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

I was thinking about raising the Storm Front issue myself (noticed the same thing)

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I think a six month hiatus is good with the obvious exception being the RunnerUp month in January.

Originally Posted by issybird

I think a 6-month hiatus between nominations is eminently reasonable.

Personally, I'm in favour of it too and I see it as similar to the stipulation that a book can't be nominated any more after being chosen as a month's selection.

Having this will also I think keep nominations in their rightful categories, as people will more often wait to nominate a book in its rightful category, but without it, people can nominate that same book in any category over and over.

[Nyssa]

I personally do not see a need for a 6 month rule. A book is only fully nominated after getting a 2nd and a 3rd. If people are not interested in reading it, or find it to be out of genre, then it will not get nominated. If it gets nominated, then there is a interest, and denying the nomination says that we do not care that there is an interest.

Storm Front, like Lolita, was a "political game", for lack of a better phrase. People nominated and/or voted for it to make a statement. As I stated earlier, I'm pretty sure Storm Front would be ignored if it was suggested for the Romance category.