Comments on: The Meaning of “Published” http://www.jackiebarbosa.com/2009/01/21/the-meaning-of-published/ History Made Hot Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:58:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Writer and Cat http://www.jackiebarbosa.com/2009/01/21/the-meaning-of-published/comment-page-1/#comment-158 Writer and Cat Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:50:00 +0000 http://authorjackiebarbosa.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/the-meaning-of-published/#comment-158 Are you sure you can join PAN when you've made the "big bucks" on a story that's under 20K? I thought it had to be for something at least 20K. I could be wrong. Are you sure you can join PAN when you’ve made the “big bucks” on a story that’s under 20K? I thought it had to be for something at least 20K. I could be wrong.

]]> By: Tessa Dare http://www.jackiebarbosa.com/2009/01/21/the-meaning-of-published/comment-page-1/#comment-159 Tessa Dare Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:41:00 +0000 http://authorjackiebarbosa.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/the-meaning-of-published/#comment-159 Great post, Jackie. I hadn't even thought of that scenario, where an author could be eligible for PAN *and* the Golden Heart!<br /><br />Like Courtney says, I'm not sure there is any way to come up with a set of rules that will please everyone - but more transparency and explanation would probably help a lot of people feel better about it. Great post, Jackie. I hadn’t even thought of that scenario, where an author could be eligible for PAN *and* the Golden Heart!

Like Courtney says, I’m not sure there is any way to come up with a set of rules that will please everyone – but more transparency and explanation would probably help a lot of people feel better about it.

]]> By: Courtney Milan http://www.jackiebarbosa.com/2009/01/21/the-meaning-of-published/comment-page-1/#comment-160 Courtney Milan Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:51:00 +0000 http://authorjackiebarbosa.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/the-meaning-of-published/#comment-160 Yes, I agree with this! Here's the thing--I think it's impossible to come up with contest rules that are both perfectly clear and not arbitrary. Either you have a bright-line rule (e.g, "A print run of at least X") which is hard to police (who discloses print runs?) and leads to whines by people who had X-1 of their books printed--or you have a rule with a little play in the joints.<br /><br />It's reasonable to say, okay, we want a rule with a little play in the joints.<br /><br />But it's unreasonable thereafter not to disclose how the joints are playing, if you get what I mean. That sort of thing should be completely, utterly transparent. It's okay with me if a staffer makes the call--just put it up on the website so that we know the call has been made.<br /><br />I think the obfuscation is maybe a quarter of what has people up in arms. It makes people think that they're trying to hide something. Yes, I agree with this! Here’s the thing–I think it’s impossible to come up with contest rules that are both perfectly clear and not arbitrary. Either you have a bright-line rule (e.g, “A print run of at least X”) which is hard to police (who discloses print runs?) and leads to whines by people who had X-1 of their books printed–or you have a rule with a little play in the joints.

It’s reasonable to say, okay, we want a rule with a little play in the joints.

But it’s unreasonable thereafter not to disclose how the joints are playing, if you get what I mean. That sort of thing should be completely, utterly transparent. It’s okay with me if a staffer makes the call–just put it up on the website so that we know the call has been made.

I think the obfuscation is maybe a quarter of what has people up in arms. It makes people think that they’re trying to hide something.

]]>