An Act of Revenge Story Challenge 2017

Well, I did like the anonymity. Some prolific authors have specific themes or styles, and it's a pleasant surprise to read a story "blind," only later to find out who wrote it. It can cause you to appreciate someone's versatility, or even just to read it with no preconceptions, from authors where you normally read anticipating you'll like it because you like their writing generally. That was kind of a neat fillip to it, as well.

And that also makes the comments more authentic because people aren't just flattering their chums.

I too will be sad to see the challenges go. I've only been in the top 6 very rarely but I always thought the challenges reinvigorated the site and created a sense of community. I'm still hoping Februs and Flopsy might be persuaded to reconsider. They do so much for us in providing a unique site, and it's all too easy to take it for granted.

I was a couple of pages behind reading this discussion, so it was with dismay that I read that Februs's proposal to discuss the future of the Challenge with Flopsy had turned into an actual decision to cancel it. I have always regarded the Challenges as one of the better features in the LSF, although I can understand how one could get worn down by the apparent continuous criticism of the voting system. I would therefore urge Februs and Flopsy to rethink their decision. However, if not, then please accept my gratitude for having put the work into providing a very enjoyable experience for the rest of us.

It has been suggested that we could run the Challenge without voting, but I actually enjoy the competitive aspect. I regard it as analogous to a charity football game - it does not really matter who wins, but aimlessly kicking a ball around a field without keeping score would be totally pointless. I always found it interesting to find out who won (and often surprisingly who didn't). I also personally found the act of having to vote provided an incentive to read all the stories (to be fair to all the authors) rather than cherry pick those with the most interesting titles, whilst the anonymity of the entries meant I often discovered authors whose work I had not appreciated previously.

As regards the voting system, could I suggest that the votes cast should be weighted by nationality? Maybe a weight of one for Swedish writers and ten for those from Ireland - although I suspect the best stories would still win.

Perhaps a convention might evolve, in which it's understood that this is a free, fun contest, run by volunteers, with no prize money nor publishing contracts at stake, and that writers who will be rotated by perceived unfairness would probably be happier not entering?

I will miss the incentive to produce a one-off story that the Challenges provided. The themes gave me a focus, and as B. Bob says above, the competition/fairness aspect ensured I read, voted and commented on all the entries the times I got involved.

Having entered most of the Challenges since the very first one in July 2010, I've been as prone as anyone to assigning absurdly inflated significance to their results, craving the acknowledgement of a podium place as if it were a measure of more than simply the popularity of a story among the available readership. So sad. I put it down to the sibling rivalry issues attendant on growing up in a big family, compounded by a good, old-fashioned, competitive English education (league tables for EVERYTHING! Who's top? Who's bottom?).

It goes without saying (perhaps too often) that we owe Februs and Flopsybunny a debt of gratitude so profound that it makes the USA's 20.244 trillion dollar one (Sept 2017 figures) look like a minor pay-day loan to get the kids some new shoes for school. Thanks so much, F and F, for all you've created here, and for keeping it going so well so long.

For the same reasons cited by Alan and Bob above, I too would ask for a re-consideration of this Challenge decision.

Perhaps just one a year?

Or replace it with an occasional non-competitive 'Theme of the Month' project, with entries published by LSF Pubs in a series of 'Theme' volumes...?

There's no end to the work we can all suggest for you both!

Thanks again.

I'll resist the temptation to enter into a discussion on free will and determinism at this point.

As for being referred to as 'sir' I do check the Queen's Honours List every year hoping to find I've been knighted for services to the spanking community but no luck so far. Maybe this year, though!


No, that's not what I said. You said and I quote, "And yet, because authors had the audacity to suggest that the scoring be changed or eliminated..." as the reason behind our decision to abandon the challenges. If this was true then we would have abandoned the challenges after the very first one, or one of the subsequent 19 challenges prior to this latest one. At the risk of repeating myself, which unfortunately seems necessary as you appear to be deliberately ignoring what I'm saying, our decision was based on the constant dialogue about the voting system. It happens after EVERY challenge and inevitably takes the focus away from the stories themselves. In addition, it's not what we wanted the challenges to be about. It's heartening to see, however, that your assertion that everyone's main focus will obviously be on getting the most points, is not borne out by many of the responses.

You then seem to suggest that "authors" collectively are being ignored or their opinion devalued. You extend this accusation further to include the site's whole membership when you say, "And i still try to listen to the opinions of my visitors.....even if I don't agree with them."

Both of these veiled accusations are entirely baseless. In fact, many of the site's current features were added based on suggestions from both authors and readers alike. For example, the challenge scoring system was changed (after the second challenge IIRC) and later we also amended them to show the top 6 (top 3 plus 3 runners up). In addition, and again purely as an example, the comment notification feature was added after it was requested by Brianna (an author, shock, horror!), the Reading List facility was added following a request, the author stats have been enhanced several times following requests, the ability to match published author names with site author names was very recently added, again by request. I could go on.

So, any suggestion that we don't listen to opinion or feedback is utter nonsense. In this particular case, the same old changes to the voting system were once again brought up. These have already been responded to several times in the past. If we thought the changes to the voting system were an improvement we would have considered implementing them but we don't believe they are and have explained, at length, why. We listened to the opinions put forward but decided to leave things as they were.



I have absolutely no idea why you're now trying to take the argument in this particular direction as it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter. You've gone from complaining about how the challenges are administered and authors not being listened to, to suggesting there'd no LSF if there was no content.

It comes across as something of an "ad hominem" attack in that I'm not a creator of content, you are, therefore ... er well I'm not sure what the implication was meant to be. A couple of comments though. I'm not entirely sure who the "you" is you refer to, if it's just me then sure I'm not a creator of content but I am the creator of the site. If the 'you' refers to myself and Flopsy then I think you'll find that one of us is a prolific creator of content. As to the symbiotic relationship, I personally don't get anything out of hosting content and my life would be much simpler and hassle-free without it. I'd be free of exchanges such as this for example.

As a footnote I have to say that I really don't understand the basis for your apparent hostility over what one would have thought was a relatively non-emotive topic.

Dear Februs, people just like to talk and there will always be people who are new to the site. It's unavoidable that the exact same discussion will resurface after every challenge involving a vote. It might be partially avoided by adding a note to the announcement of the challenge, including a link to the previous threads regarding the subject, stating that no one is to comment on the scoring system before having thoroughly studied said threads. But still the same questions will return again and again. But is that really a problem? People talk and discuss, which is what we all like to do. If the threads lead nowhere, so be it, but still people will have had the chance to have their say and reason about possible changes and thus be happier than before, even if it really is pointless. The discussion made them think, be active and pay attention to the site, which are all good things.

I understand that it's bothersome for the administrators to see the same discussion arise again and again, but it's not the same people all the time and I still fail to see why said discussion is such a problem. People also write congratulations and cheerful comments, thanking everyone and describing their delight from another splendid challenge having been finalized with many good entries, helping many authors to evolve. I understand if you feel that a lot of the comments regarding the scoring is whining, but an alternative solution could be to open a "whine-thread", announced at the starting of the challenge with the stern statement that everyone who has comments regarding the scoring system, go there and the ones not interested don't have to care.

I found other parts of the latest thread much more interesting than the entries on the scoring system. Several comments regarded if other authors should study my style or not. Some were in favor and one jokingly suggested that I should write a handbook. I was about to write down how I think and what drives me, as an amusing interlude for others to read, but then another entry caught my eye. An author violently opposed the idea, as imitating another author would be devastating to diversity and that comment made me think. I found those aspects more interesting and I paid more attention to that than to the scoring discussion. The scoring discussion seems to always have been there, but it's far from the only thing in the threads about the challenges.

No matter how a challenge is arranged, for children, retired or at a spanking site; people will always have an opinion about the scoring, who "won" or not, even if it doesn't matter one bit. The intention is to have the focus on the writing I know, but I think it's unavoidable that people will go into the scoring system as well, no matter how things are arranged. That however doesn't affect how important many of the authors experience the challenges and the good things that it bring. It's just in the human nature to twist and turn things to see if it might work another way, but I don't see it as a problem. People just like to talk and as said, it's not the same people in all the threads.

Rather than go point for point ad nauseam, rest assured no deep-seated hostility is the root for any of this.

In fact, if you look at my posts separately you will see that I made one suggestion of my own: "could one of the three challenges be judged by authors only, similar to the Academy Awards?" It is a fair question, delivered with respect and sincerity. If the answer is 'no'. That is fine. Your site/your decision.

My only other suggestion followed on the heels of what others had already suggested, which was......if the intent of the challenge was NOT competition........why not eliminate the scoring? Another sincere and valid question.

My admittedly more dismissive post was a reaction to what I saw and still see as a "I'm taking my ball and going home" response to an open dialog on what is supposed to be an open forum, that was in no way critical or nasty. The decision to end something people generally enjoyed and were just discussing possible improvements to, seems extreme.

And the reason I mentioned content was because I was talking to you. I am fully aware of Flopsy's writing as you WELL KNOW. My point was nothing more than a reminder that unlike other sites and forums.....my own included......the LSF is a collaborative effort of administration and contribution. And while someone was very eager to point out that each of us is merely one contributor who would not be missed in the collective assembly, the work needed to contribute is as real as the work to administrate. To base a negative decision on the fact that people dared to talk about scoring yet again, is dismissive of those sincerely discussing it.....whether they are a majority or just two contributors. And if you are upset that it keeps coming up year after year.......maybe that tells you something about how it affects some people.

Now you can pick apart each of these sentences. You can cite logical fallacies. You can even attribute perceived motives to what I'm saying. But I can assure you, THAT was my only reason for writing what I did. And regardless of what you do with the Challenges, sorry.....but I still feel that way.

(Oh and I think that knighthood is probably inevitable.......just not sure when.)

For what it's worth, I enjoyed the challenges in that they pushed my writing in different directions. I had never worked with a maximum word count before entering one contest. I don't do a lot of F/m writing and one contest this year sparked a few F/m stories from me. Being given a topic and asked to write a story on it, or be inspired by a photo or a setting, helped me grow as a writer.

I an sad to see the end of the contests and hope that perhaps the decision could be revisited next year (or the one after that) but then again I'm not the one doing the hard work of organizing things, tracking votes, and fielding questions.

I have no right to even make a suggestion, since I haven't been active on the site for a while, so I hope my two-cents worth about limiting entries didn't have a bearing on your decision to stop. It was just a thought off the top of my head.

I am sorry to see the end of the contests. From a purely selfish point of view, sometimes I need a push, a deadline, a topic to steer me in a new direction... in other words, a challenge. Challenging myself just doesn't have the same effect. I'm glad you held this one because it was the catalyst to get me starting writing again after about two years. So, I thank you for that.

Thank you, Februs and Flopsy, for all you do! It may not always seem like it, but you are appreciated more than you know.