Quote:
Originally Posted by Runestar  I don't see why objectiveness cannot or should not be an ideal for the judges to strive towards and achieve. Just because they feel it cannot be done, that gives them all the justification they need to throw it out of the window altogether?  |
It's very possible that the term objective is being read in different ways. Perhaps you could explain your point without the term.
What I got from Meghan's posts about it (and I could be way off here that's why I'm asking for more information on what people mean) is there would be a predetermined checklist of criteria that determines what is a good book.
If you are just saying that judges should be unbiased then I don't think there is an argument to made against that. Of course judges should be as unbiased as possible, but we are human so some bias will be there. Saying that I really like Behind the Spells: Compendium (which I really do) doesn't by itself mean that I am biased towards it and would be biased against books that competed with it. It just means I really like the book.
And yet another word from our sponsors
