The Awards, should we change the way they are decided?

[Des Lewis]

That sounds fair enough, but should 'partner' be extended to include any (blood) relationship or any close friendship?

[Rolnikov]

A further change I would suggest, and this is one which would probably need more fine-tuning and discussion, is to add to the "Notes on Eligibility" section of the constitution:

All recommendations must feature an element of fantasy or concern in part a work of fantasy.

I really think it's time to stop making ourselves look silly on this issue. As the awards stand, you could recommend The One Show for Best Television and The Guardian for Best Non-Fiction. I realise there are sometimes difficulties in identifying whether a given work has a fantasy element, but the hard cases are likely to be rarer than the easy ones, and the member recommending a work will always be able to advise the awards admin if there is any doubt.

For example, JAG should be eligible because one character is a psychic, but NCIS shouldn't. Halloween shouldn't be eligible, because it's about a serial killer, but Halloween IV should be, because he develops psychic powers.

[DavidJHowe]

Please could I ask the committee to consider and vote on this change, whenever it's convenient?

The Constitution currently states:

Recommendations may not be made for the recommender’s own material. Such recommendations will be ignored (though the voter’s other recommendations will be added to the longlist as usual).

I propose changing this to:

Recommendations may not be made for the recommender’s own material or that of their partner. Such recommendations will be ignored (though the voter’s other recommendations will be added to the longlist as usual).

It's a really useful rule, I think, but since members can circumvent it for a fiver it's losing its effectiveness. And it means I won't have to yell at Ranjna to stop her recommending TQF...

How would this be monitored?  How is whoever is Admin going to know who the partner/mum/dad/brother/brother in  law/sister/cousins are for anyone who votes?

David

[Rolnikov]

The same way they currently know who is trying to recommend their own material - imperfectly, to some extent. You can't check every single road in the UK for speeding at any given moment, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have a rule against it.

Most of the couples in the BFS, once the rule was in place, would simply stop recommending each other's work.

[Rolnikov]

Sorry, I've just noticed you were talking about mum, dads, brothers, etc too - obviously that would be impossible. That's why I suggested partner.

[John Forth]

Not to muddy the waters, but is there also an argument for limiting the awards to works produced by British authors/artists/film-makers? It seems daft dishing out awards to the likes of Stephen King and Christopher Nolan when they're a) never going to turn up to collect them; and b) barely likely to even notice they've received them.

[Des Lewis]

Once you start any 'exclusions' in a member voting system, it becomes difficult. Partners become ex-partners, etc.  Currently, we trust the BFS committee to choose the KEW Award Winner. Why not use that as precedent to do that with all categories, perhaps with some strengthened  form of membership voting control over who is on the committee?

[GaryC]

I don't know what Christopher Nolan's citizenship is, but he was born in London...

Des, what issues do you have with the Awards in the years 2001-2005? I was Awards Admin for those years, doubling as Chairman for the first two. Also, in the interests of full disclosure, I've acted as a "consultant" every year since, checking the longlists for errors of category, eligibility, spelling errors etc. I once caught someone using a pseudonym to recommend his own work.

In my day there was just one vote from a longlist, and the shortlist was simply the top five in the vote. The Awards Admin could and did recommend items to go on the longlist but was the only BFS Member not allowed actually to vote.

[Des Lewis]

My main point, Gary, as I recall, was nothing to do with the admin (as I recall us discussing on TTA at the time) - but with a multi-jury system (i.e all members as jury) not reading all the books to which they were acting as jury.  There was more to it than that, I'm sure, and the system has changed slightly since then.

[Des Lewis]

BTW, Gary, with all your experience (probably second to none), I'd love to hear what you feel about any possible changes for the future in the Awards system.

[Peter Coleborn]

Awards to Brits living in the USA or Americans living in the UK? It all gets complicated trying to "ban" some people from the awards.

Good idea about ensuring a "fantasy" element. However, I'd argue that a novel about a serial killer could be considered "horror" and is thus "fantasy" and is thus eligible.

Difficult...

[Peter Coleborn]

And elsewhere, someone said that SF was also missing from the shortlist, and others saying that the BSFA deals with that sub-genre. Don't forget that Michael Marshall Smith's ONLY FORWARD won the BFS award long ago. So we do consider other areas of the genre.

[Peter Coleborn]

Off topic: I've just noticed that I am described as a "Barbarian Monarch" in this forum ... Eh

[Rolnikov]

Off topic: I've just noticed that I am described as a "Barbarian Monarch" in this forum ... Eh

It's based on the number of posts on the forum.

Initiate > Warrior > Thaumaturge > Barbarian Monarch > Elder Darkness

I think they were something fairly random originally, and I spent five minutes coming up with fantasy versions. And then fifty more minutes trying to think of versions that were not gender-specific... They can all be changed in the forum's admin area.

[cavscott]

To suggest a change, someone would need to redraft the Awards Constitution to reflect whatever they wanted to suggest. This should then be submitted to the Chair of the BFS, and would then be discussed, back-and-forth, between the BFS Committee and whoever raised it to iron out any remaining wrinkles and to ensure it's watertight (so, for example, what happens if a jury can't be set up for a certain award? Is that award not then presented? How many people should form a minimum jury? What happens if a shortlisted book cannot be sourced from the publisher? Is it then dropped? And so on). Then it is presented to the BFS Membership to vote on - either at the next AGM, or it could be put to a special vote of the membership.

Thanks David.

I am willing to redraft the Awards constitution in line to some of the thoughts that have been discussed over recent days.

If anyone would like to discuss the redraft with me then please contact me via email (cavscott@gmail.com) or DM on Facebook.

Cheers,

Cav