4.08.2006

Vote CLOSED

Here is the list of those that were disqualified for word count.
Popular (bordering on frightening!) demand is to have a "best of the DQ" winner:
Send me an email with your choice. Email votes only.
Voting opens now and closes at midnight tonight. IT"S CLOSED NOW


1
5
7
19
24
32
51
54
62
68
87
102
105

8 comments:

Elektra said...

Can we campaign?

I promise a pink tam to everyone who votes for me, and equal rights for goats

Nightfahl said...

elektra! lol

Anonymous said...

Going over the word limit is more forgiveable than being creative enough to change spelling or add a conjunction to make the words and phrases fit more smoothly into a well-written, mercifully short piece? Being verbose instead of clever is actually deserving of reward? I protest.

Anonymous said...

I also noticed most of the DQ's wouldn't have gotten a perfect score even if they had qualified.

Maybe it would have been more equal if the DQ's that made it for the vote would have received a perfect score otherwise.

Anonymous said...

More fair, perhaps, but much less fun

One Great Scorer said...

To be rewarded for being disqualified is strange. To protest that terseness in failure to follow the rules is more worthy than verbosity in failure to follow the rules is stranger.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't get too snippy with Miss Snark. She might decide lapping up an extra pail of gin is more rewarding than running a contest. We don't want to miss out on the fun of another one.

Anonymous said...

Just because Miss Snark's word count is different than a writer's word count does not mean the writer was over word count. I had exactly 500 words in my entry. Worked very hard to MAKE IT exactly 500 words. And Miss Snark's word count says differently. So, it was NOT a lack of terseness. And it annoyed the hell out of me to find that Miss Snark's word processor counted differently.

So, do you penalize a writer because two word processors give a different word count?