2017 Winter Wakeup Writing Shootout Contest! (Sign-up Here)
Jan 1, 2017 20:39:00 GMT
bruno likes this
Post by Martin T. Ingham on Jan 1, 2017 20:39:00 GMT
Welcome to Martinus Publishing's "Winter Wakeup" Writing Shootout!
For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, a "shootout" is a writing competition in which writers of significant talent take on the challenge of writing and reviewing short stories. Participating writers are given a prompt and one week to write a short story based on that prompt. The subsequent week, the stories are reviewed by the participants. Story authors remain anonymous until the reviews are final, and the reviews are kept anonymous for fair and unbiased opinion.
The shootout is part writing contest and part writing exercise, as it tests each participant's skills in many ways. It is designed to be fun for the writers participating, even while it is challenging.
As has become customary in these shootouts, we'll be setting up a team system, where writers will be competing head to head. There won't be eliminations, so each writer will get the chance to write and review in 3 regular rounds. After those 3 rounds, the top scoring writers on each team will compete for the win.
There will be one Grand Prize awarded to the writer who wins the final round: Publication! The winning writer will have their final story accepted for publication as a special addition to a forthcoming Martinus Publishing project, to be announced! The winner will also hold the distinction as the Grand winner of the 2017 Winter Wakeup Shootout, with a special .jpg badge that they can display on their blog, social media sites, etc...
Limited Space Available, sign up here: Martinus Publishing's Winter Wakeup Shootout will have a maximum of 21 participants. First come, first serve. Once the 21st person has been accepted to participate, the entry period will be closed. To sign up, send an email to mtiediting (at) inbox.com asking to be included.
Additional purpose and value of the shootout:
For those of you who haven't participated before, you may be asking this question. Above and beyond the grand prize, these are the main reasons to participate in the shootout:
1: Entertainment –This is an important aspect of the shootout. It is designed to be a fun experience, something a writer does because they like to write, and they want to test themselves against their contemporaries. It started out as a game writers played, and evolved into its current contest form.
2: Reviews –A lot of writers enjoy the critique part of the contest. Not only do you receive valuable reviews about your own creations, but you also have the opportunity to give your two cents worth on the stories of fellow writers.
3: Free Stories –If you're a writer, you have to enjoy reading, and participating in the shootout gives you the opportunity to read fresh material from your fellow writers.
4: Prestige –There is a certain level of pride one can have in themselves and their skills when they successfully run the entire gamut of a shootout. Even though the finalists and eventual winner may have the greatest bragging rights, any participant can feel good about successfully creating new works of fiction in a short amount of time based on the particular prompts.
5: Further Publication Potential –Besides the grand prize winner, other stories may be offered publication in forthcoming Martinus Publishing anthologies. The shootout is designed to create diverse works of fiction, and many may find a home in various collections, some of which haven't even been announced yet. While publication is not guaranteed unless you win, there is no telling what might pique my interest and get a publication offer. Further, many shootout writers have had shootout stories published in other short fiction markets. The shootout helps you to build upon your body of work, and what you do with it is up to you!
So, even if you don't win the shootout, you have some very positive reasons to participate!
Shootout FAQ:
Q: How long do my stories have to be?
A: While there is no set limit on word count, shootout stories usually fall within the 2,000-5,000 word range, though we sometimes see flash fiction, and a few longer pieces.
Q: How many stories will I have to review each round?
A: Depending on the number of participants, each writer will have to review a maximum of 7 stories maximum each round (possibly only 5, depending on the number of participants).
Q: Is there a specific Genre requirement for shootout stories?
A: There is no strict genre requirement, though some prompts tend to steer writers toward one genre or another. Keep in mind, Martinus Publishing is primarily a Science Fiction & Fantasy publisher, so stories written in those genres are more likely to be considered for publication with us. However, writers are free to write in any genre, so long as their stories fit the prompts.
Q: How in-depth do my reviews have to be, and how do I "score" them?
A: The amount of detail you give to each review is up to you, and there will be both a scoring chart and a reviewing format provided during the contest, to make it easy and balanced. (For more information, see our "Reviewing" section below.)
Q: How does the "team" system work?
A: Writers will be separated into different teams of 5 to 7 participants each. The writers on a single team will be competing against each other, and not competing against the other teams. Each writer will be reviewing stories from a team other than their own, so people won't be reviewing the stories of the writers they're competing against (no conflict of interest).
Q: What kind of "prompts" are we going to see?
A: The prompts are loose guidelines given out at the beginning of each round, and each writer interprets them in their own way. For example, some prompts given in past shootouts have been:
Instrument Failure
Medical Emergency
The End of the World Seems Imminent
Curses
The First Time Traveler
Q: How do I submit my stories & reviews?
A: The stories and reviews will be sent via email. All stories and reviews must be in a format compatible with mircosoft Word (.doc or .rtf format preferred, though I can now accept .docx files if you must send them that way). We'll be using a special, private forum on this very board to coordinate things and so you can chat with fellow participants during the contest.
Format and schedule:
The shootout runs for 3 regular rounds, and has a 4th "finalist" round for the top-scoring writers. Here is the timeline for the Winter Wakeup Shootout 2017:
January 14-21: First Round of Writing.
January 22-28: First Round of Reviewing
January 28-February 4: Second Round of Writing
February 5-11: Second Round of Reviewing
February 11-18: Third Round of Writing
February 19-25: Third Round of Reviewing
February 26-March 4: Finalist Round
March 5-11: Final Round of Reviewing.
Step by Step: Anatomy of a Shootout:
Below you will find a basic run-down of how things are run, along with the scoring guidelines:
1: During a "Round of Writing," each participant writes a single short story based on a specific prompt that will be given out by the "Editor" (aka the contest coordinator). A writer can take the entire timeframe if needed, though they can submit it at any time during the week. However, they must submit by the deadline, which is always 11:59PM Pacific Time on the specified end date of the round.
2: Once all stories from a particular round are submitted, they are compiled by the Editor into team sets. Each writer will be assigned a "team," which is a block of writers they will be competing against during the regular rounds of writing. Each set of stories will be sent out to the members of a different team, so each writer will be reviewing stories from writers they are not directly competing against. Stories are sent "anonymously" for review, meaning nobody will know who wrote a particular story until after the review period has ended and the final scores & comments have been received.
3: Reviewing: Each writer will review the stories that are sent to them based on the content of the tale and the quality of the writing. The "Comments" given can be as simple or elaborate as a reviewer wishes, though it is now mandatory that each review contain at least 2 sentences and point out at least 1 thing was good or bad about the story. Reviewers are free to comment as much as they deem appropriate, as part of the contest is to let the writers know what works in their stories and what they need to work on.
Sample Review (given to a finalist story by Bruno Lombardi that will appear in the forthcoming Martinus Publishing collection "Yarr: A Space Pirate Anthology."
Story F1: For the Times They Are A-Changin'
Score: 7
Comments: I did like the idea of space cruises and fake space pirates. Especially considering Michael wanted to be one of them. The idea that they were recruiting people was also pretty interesting. However, this story may have benefited more from just being in Michael's POV I felt. For me it felt a little scattered and unfocused. I wasn't sure who I was supposed to be relating with in any way. The writing and dialogue itself were good, but I just had trouble connecting to any of the characters other than Michael who wanted to be a pirate. (P1, P2, P5, N3)
This review gives a basic idea of the review format. It points out what the reader felt about the story, and pointed out some good and bad points about it. Some writers add a lot more detail, and others add less. It can also depend on the particular story, and how many things "stick out" for comment.
4: Scoring Point System: You have no doubt noticed the letter-number codes in parentheses at the end of the sample review. These specify how the writer scored the story based on an objective point score chart, which allows for balanced and consistent reviews:
Objective Reasoning Chart: Starting with a baseline score of 5 points, utilize the following to arrive at a final story score:
Positive: (one (1) point added for each that applies)
P1: WRITING was technically very clean, with few grammatical errors.
P2: PREMISE was very interesting, intriguing, or clever.
P3: MAIN CHARACTER was interesting, well-rendered, and/or enjoyable to read.
P4: Story ENDING was enjoyable or otherwise very satisfying.
P5: Writing STYLE was particularly slick, fun to read, or otherwise engaging.
P6: Overall story was VERY ENTERTAINING, and a total pleasure to read.
No adjustments for the following: (baseline for guidance)
o WRITING had some technical errors, but nothing serious.
o PREMISE was reasonably interesting and vaguely original.
o OVERALL story was decent, with no major strengths or weaknesses I could see.
o Story ENDING was logical, if not necessarily inspiring.
o Story is not of a GENRE I normally enjoy, but this seemed typical of its type.
o Story was fun or otherwise ENJOYABLE to read, but not especially so.
Negative: (minus one for each that applies)
N1: WRITING was marred by frequent grammatical errors or other problems (POV, tense).
N2: PREMISE was illogical, severely clichéd, or otherwise “rubbed me the wrong way.”
N3: Significant WEAKNESS with Characterization, Setting, and/or Pacing.
N4: Story ENDING was illogical, aggravating, or otherwise unsatisfying.
N5: The OVERALL WRITING was poor, sloppy, or “all over the place” and detracted from my enjoyment of the story.
N6: Story was CONFUSING or very hard to follow, even after a second reading. (Do not combine with “N5” above).
N7: The Story was BORING and did not entertain, despite being well-written (Do not combine with N5 or N6).
N8: Story did not satisfy the PROMPT in a meaningful way.
Reviewers are encouraged to cite specific codes in their reviews. For example: "The story had P1, P3, & P4, but I feel it also had N2, and I knocked off half a point for N8, since the prompt usage was kind of weak in my opinion, but not totally absent." The story would therefore warrant a score of 6.5.
Note: The maximum score for any story is still 10-points, and minimum score is 1-point, even if a story is modified above or below those numbers by the above chart.
5: Once the review period ends and all the reviews are received, the Editor will compile them into a single document and send them out to everyone. The writers of each story are then revealed, while the reviews are kept anonymous. The point scores are totaled and averaged.
6: After the end of the third round, the point scores for all 3 rounds are averaged, giving the final ranking. At that point, the top scoring writer on each team becomes a "finalist," and they are given 1 more prompt to write a story. During the final review period one week later, all of the writers who are not finalists review and score the final stories, to determine a winner.
Official Codes of Conduct
The Writing Shootout is a casual contest, designed for writers who want to test their writing skills and review fresh material from fellow authors, while competing for a chance at guaranteed publication in a Martinus Publishing anthology. To assure a smoothly-run contest, participants will adhere to the following Codes of Conduct:
1: Respect. Each writer is expected to treat all other participants with courtesy and respect. Personal disputes may arise from any number of reasons, but it is asked that arguments be kept to a minimum during the contest. Please refrain from personal insults, and keep things strictly professional.
2: Honest reviews. The review process gives each writer the opportunity to read a number of competitor stories, and it is intended for these reviews to be honest and truthful. Although there is room for subjectivity in reviewing, it is expected that reviewers will adhere to clause 1 in their commentaries, but writers should not feel they must sugar-coat reviews. Part of the purpose of reviews is to help writers get an idea of what is working in their stories, and what isn't working.
3: Fair Scoring Practice: Stories shall be judged based on the content and quality of the writing, with no prejudice based on the source author. Stories are submitted anonymously for review, and should be judged that way, with no favoritism or negativity given based on who wrote the story. Please do not seek to identify who wrote a particular story before the anonymous review period is over. If for some reason you have a suspicion of who the author is, remain impartial and score the story based on the content of the story and the quality of the writing, period.
4: Anonymous Comments: The scores & comments given during the anonymous review period are designed to be anonymous, so writers can be completely honest. It is asked that all comments remain unattributed, even after a particular review period is over.
5: Comment Quality: Although the detail and scope of a review is widely left to an individual writer's discretion, it is asked that each story review contain at least 2 sentences, and that at least 1 positive and/or negative attribute is mentioned or discussed. Writers are welcome (and encouraged) to add more detail in their comments, though due to the limited time constraints brevity is acceptable.
6: Personal Recognition: It is asked that authors reveal any personal relationships to fellow contest participants. If you personally know someone who is also playing, inform the Editor before the contest begins, to resolve any conflict of interest that may arise. Keep in mind, family members or close friends are free to participate in the same shootout, but they may be placed on the same "team" to prevent accidental conflict of interest. (*This may be waived for repeat participants who have proven themselves able to judge stories objectively without personal bias—Editor's Discretion.)
7: Editor's Veto: The Editor reserves the right to reject questionable scores under certain rare circumstances. This option will only be exercised in the case of a singularly high or low point scoring that seems incongruous with the general consensus on a story, and only if the Editor has strong reason to believe that one of the codes of conduct has been violated to grant an "unjust" score (personal recognition, disrespectful conduct, etc...).
8: Participation Requirement: Writers who sign up for the shootout are made aware of the timeframe and demands of the contest. Barring extenuating circumstances, writers are asked to complete the contest in full. If an unexpected life problem comes up and it prevents a writer from participating in a particular round, they should inform the Editor ahead of time. Do not simply disappear. Any writer who fails to submit a story or set of reviews on time without explanation will be excluded from the next shootout. Please take this contest seriously, as it is unfair to everyone else involved if someone is not committed.
9: Fresh Material: The purpose and intent of the shootout is to task writers to create short stories within a limited timeframe. Each round, writers are asked to write 1 story in 1 week, based on a particular theme. It is asked that writers only submit stories they have written within this 1-week timeframe, even if they happen to have a previously-written story that fits the theme. Fresh material exclusively, please.
10: Intellectual Property Rights: Authors affirm that they are the sole creators of the stories they are submitting during the shootout. Stories must be the product of the actual participant, and not another writer.
For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, a "shootout" is a writing competition in which writers of significant talent take on the challenge of writing and reviewing short stories. Participating writers are given a prompt and one week to write a short story based on that prompt. The subsequent week, the stories are reviewed by the participants. Story authors remain anonymous until the reviews are final, and the reviews are kept anonymous for fair and unbiased opinion.
The shootout is part writing contest and part writing exercise, as it tests each participant's skills in many ways. It is designed to be fun for the writers participating, even while it is challenging.
As has become customary in these shootouts, we'll be setting up a team system, where writers will be competing head to head. There won't be eliminations, so each writer will get the chance to write and review in 3 regular rounds. After those 3 rounds, the top scoring writers on each team will compete for the win.
There will be one Grand Prize awarded to the writer who wins the final round: Publication! The winning writer will have their final story accepted for publication as a special addition to a forthcoming Martinus Publishing project, to be announced! The winner will also hold the distinction as the Grand winner of the 2017 Winter Wakeup Shootout, with a special .jpg badge that they can display on their blog, social media sites, etc...
Limited Space Available, sign up here: Martinus Publishing's Winter Wakeup Shootout will have a maximum of 21 participants. First come, first serve. Once the 21st person has been accepted to participate, the entry period will be closed. To sign up, send an email to mtiediting (at) inbox.com asking to be included.
Additional purpose and value of the shootout:
For those of you who haven't participated before, you may be asking this question. Above and beyond the grand prize, these are the main reasons to participate in the shootout:
1: Entertainment –This is an important aspect of the shootout. It is designed to be a fun experience, something a writer does because they like to write, and they want to test themselves against their contemporaries. It started out as a game writers played, and evolved into its current contest form.
2: Reviews –A lot of writers enjoy the critique part of the contest. Not only do you receive valuable reviews about your own creations, but you also have the opportunity to give your two cents worth on the stories of fellow writers.
3: Free Stories –If you're a writer, you have to enjoy reading, and participating in the shootout gives you the opportunity to read fresh material from your fellow writers.
4: Prestige –There is a certain level of pride one can have in themselves and their skills when they successfully run the entire gamut of a shootout. Even though the finalists and eventual winner may have the greatest bragging rights, any participant can feel good about successfully creating new works of fiction in a short amount of time based on the particular prompts.
5: Further Publication Potential –Besides the grand prize winner, other stories may be offered publication in forthcoming Martinus Publishing anthologies. The shootout is designed to create diverse works of fiction, and many may find a home in various collections, some of which haven't even been announced yet. While publication is not guaranteed unless you win, there is no telling what might pique my interest and get a publication offer. Further, many shootout writers have had shootout stories published in other short fiction markets. The shootout helps you to build upon your body of work, and what you do with it is up to you!
So, even if you don't win the shootout, you have some very positive reasons to participate!
Shootout FAQ:
Q: How long do my stories have to be?
A: While there is no set limit on word count, shootout stories usually fall within the 2,000-5,000 word range, though we sometimes see flash fiction, and a few longer pieces.
Q: How many stories will I have to review each round?
A: Depending on the number of participants, each writer will have to review a maximum of 7 stories maximum each round (possibly only 5, depending on the number of participants).
Q: Is there a specific Genre requirement for shootout stories?
A: There is no strict genre requirement, though some prompts tend to steer writers toward one genre or another. Keep in mind, Martinus Publishing is primarily a Science Fiction & Fantasy publisher, so stories written in those genres are more likely to be considered for publication with us. However, writers are free to write in any genre, so long as their stories fit the prompts.
Q: How in-depth do my reviews have to be, and how do I "score" them?
A: The amount of detail you give to each review is up to you, and there will be both a scoring chart and a reviewing format provided during the contest, to make it easy and balanced. (For more information, see our "Reviewing" section below.)
Q: How does the "team" system work?
A: Writers will be separated into different teams of 5 to 7 participants each. The writers on a single team will be competing against each other, and not competing against the other teams. Each writer will be reviewing stories from a team other than their own, so people won't be reviewing the stories of the writers they're competing against (no conflict of interest).
Q: What kind of "prompts" are we going to see?
A: The prompts are loose guidelines given out at the beginning of each round, and each writer interprets them in their own way. For example, some prompts given in past shootouts have been:
Instrument Failure
Medical Emergency
The End of the World Seems Imminent
Curses
The First Time Traveler
Q: How do I submit my stories & reviews?
A: The stories and reviews will be sent via email. All stories and reviews must be in a format compatible with mircosoft Word (.doc or .rtf format preferred, though I can now accept .docx files if you must send them that way). We'll be using a special, private forum on this very board to coordinate things and so you can chat with fellow participants during the contest.
Format and schedule:
The shootout runs for 3 regular rounds, and has a 4th "finalist" round for the top-scoring writers. Here is the timeline for the Winter Wakeup Shootout 2017:
January 14-21: First Round of Writing.
January 22-28: First Round of Reviewing
January 28-February 4: Second Round of Writing
February 5-11: Second Round of Reviewing
February 11-18: Third Round of Writing
February 19-25: Third Round of Reviewing
February 26-March 4: Finalist Round
March 5-11: Final Round of Reviewing.
Step by Step: Anatomy of a Shootout:
Below you will find a basic run-down of how things are run, along with the scoring guidelines:
1: During a "Round of Writing," each participant writes a single short story based on a specific prompt that will be given out by the "Editor" (aka the contest coordinator). A writer can take the entire timeframe if needed, though they can submit it at any time during the week. However, they must submit by the deadline, which is always 11:59PM Pacific Time on the specified end date of the round.
2: Once all stories from a particular round are submitted, they are compiled by the Editor into team sets. Each writer will be assigned a "team," which is a block of writers they will be competing against during the regular rounds of writing. Each set of stories will be sent out to the members of a different team, so each writer will be reviewing stories from writers they are not directly competing against. Stories are sent "anonymously" for review, meaning nobody will know who wrote a particular story until after the review period has ended and the final scores & comments have been received.
3: Reviewing: Each writer will review the stories that are sent to them based on the content of the tale and the quality of the writing. The "Comments" given can be as simple or elaborate as a reviewer wishes, though it is now mandatory that each review contain at least 2 sentences and point out at least 1 thing was good or bad about the story. Reviewers are free to comment as much as they deem appropriate, as part of the contest is to let the writers know what works in their stories and what they need to work on.
Sample Review (given to a finalist story by Bruno Lombardi that will appear in the forthcoming Martinus Publishing collection "Yarr: A Space Pirate Anthology."
Story F1: For the Times They Are A-Changin'
Score: 7
Comments: I did like the idea of space cruises and fake space pirates. Especially considering Michael wanted to be one of them. The idea that they were recruiting people was also pretty interesting. However, this story may have benefited more from just being in Michael's POV I felt. For me it felt a little scattered and unfocused. I wasn't sure who I was supposed to be relating with in any way. The writing and dialogue itself were good, but I just had trouble connecting to any of the characters other than Michael who wanted to be a pirate. (P1, P2, P5, N3)
This review gives a basic idea of the review format. It points out what the reader felt about the story, and pointed out some good and bad points about it. Some writers add a lot more detail, and others add less. It can also depend on the particular story, and how many things "stick out" for comment.
4: Scoring Point System: You have no doubt noticed the letter-number codes in parentheses at the end of the sample review. These specify how the writer scored the story based on an objective point score chart, which allows for balanced and consistent reviews:
Objective Reasoning Chart: Starting with a baseline score of 5 points, utilize the following to arrive at a final story score:
Positive: (one (1) point added for each that applies)
P1: WRITING was technically very clean, with few grammatical errors.
P2: PREMISE was very interesting, intriguing, or clever.
P3: MAIN CHARACTER was interesting, well-rendered, and/or enjoyable to read.
P4: Story ENDING was enjoyable or otherwise very satisfying.
P5: Writing STYLE was particularly slick, fun to read, or otherwise engaging.
P6: Overall story was VERY ENTERTAINING, and a total pleasure to read.
No adjustments for the following: (baseline for guidance)
o WRITING had some technical errors, but nothing serious.
o PREMISE was reasonably interesting and vaguely original.
o OVERALL story was decent, with no major strengths or weaknesses I could see.
o Story ENDING was logical, if not necessarily inspiring.
o Story is not of a GENRE I normally enjoy, but this seemed typical of its type.
o Story was fun or otherwise ENJOYABLE to read, but not especially so.
Negative: (minus one for each that applies)
N1: WRITING was marred by frequent grammatical errors or other problems (POV, tense).
N2: PREMISE was illogical, severely clichéd, or otherwise “rubbed me the wrong way.”
N3: Significant WEAKNESS with Characterization, Setting, and/or Pacing.
N4: Story ENDING was illogical, aggravating, or otherwise unsatisfying.
N5: The OVERALL WRITING was poor, sloppy, or “all over the place” and detracted from my enjoyment of the story.
N6: Story was CONFUSING or very hard to follow, even after a second reading. (Do not combine with “N5” above).
N7: The Story was BORING and did not entertain, despite being well-written (Do not combine with N5 or N6).
N8: Story did not satisfy the PROMPT in a meaningful way.
Reviewers are encouraged to cite specific codes in their reviews. For example: "The story had P1, P3, & P4, but I feel it also had N2, and I knocked off half a point for N8, since the prompt usage was kind of weak in my opinion, but not totally absent." The story would therefore warrant a score of 6.5.
Note: The maximum score for any story is still 10-points, and minimum score is 1-point, even if a story is modified above or below those numbers by the above chart.
5: Once the review period ends and all the reviews are received, the Editor will compile them into a single document and send them out to everyone. The writers of each story are then revealed, while the reviews are kept anonymous. The point scores are totaled and averaged.
6: After the end of the third round, the point scores for all 3 rounds are averaged, giving the final ranking. At that point, the top scoring writer on each team becomes a "finalist," and they are given 1 more prompt to write a story. During the final review period one week later, all of the writers who are not finalists review and score the final stories, to determine a winner.
Official Codes of Conduct
The Writing Shootout is a casual contest, designed for writers who want to test their writing skills and review fresh material from fellow authors, while competing for a chance at guaranteed publication in a Martinus Publishing anthology. To assure a smoothly-run contest, participants will adhere to the following Codes of Conduct:
1: Respect. Each writer is expected to treat all other participants with courtesy and respect. Personal disputes may arise from any number of reasons, but it is asked that arguments be kept to a minimum during the contest. Please refrain from personal insults, and keep things strictly professional.
2: Honest reviews. The review process gives each writer the opportunity to read a number of competitor stories, and it is intended for these reviews to be honest and truthful. Although there is room for subjectivity in reviewing, it is expected that reviewers will adhere to clause 1 in their commentaries, but writers should not feel they must sugar-coat reviews. Part of the purpose of reviews is to help writers get an idea of what is working in their stories, and what isn't working.
3: Fair Scoring Practice: Stories shall be judged based on the content and quality of the writing, with no prejudice based on the source author. Stories are submitted anonymously for review, and should be judged that way, with no favoritism or negativity given based on who wrote the story. Please do not seek to identify who wrote a particular story before the anonymous review period is over. If for some reason you have a suspicion of who the author is, remain impartial and score the story based on the content of the story and the quality of the writing, period.
4: Anonymous Comments: The scores & comments given during the anonymous review period are designed to be anonymous, so writers can be completely honest. It is asked that all comments remain unattributed, even after a particular review period is over.
5: Comment Quality: Although the detail and scope of a review is widely left to an individual writer's discretion, it is asked that each story review contain at least 2 sentences, and that at least 1 positive and/or negative attribute is mentioned or discussed. Writers are welcome (and encouraged) to add more detail in their comments, though due to the limited time constraints brevity is acceptable.
6: Personal Recognition: It is asked that authors reveal any personal relationships to fellow contest participants. If you personally know someone who is also playing, inform the Editor before the contest begins, to resolve any conflict of interest that may arise. Keep in mind, family members or close friends are free to participate in the same shootout, but they may be placed on the same "team" to prevent accidental conflict of interest. (*This may be waived for repeat participants who have proven themselves able to judge stories objectively without personal bias—Editor's Discretion.)
7: Editor's Veto: The Editor reserves the right to reject questionable scores under certain rare circumstances. This option will only be exercised in the case of a singularly high or low point scoring that seems incongruous with the general consensus on a story, and only if the Editor has strong reason to believe that one of the codes of conduct has been violated to grant an "unjust" score (personal recognition, disrespectful conduct, etc...).
8: Participation Requirement: Writers who sign up for the shootout are made aware of the timeframe and demands of the contest. Barring extenuating circumstances, writers are asked to complete the contest in full. If an unexpected life problem comes up and it prevents a writer from participating in a particular round, they should inform the Editor ahead of time. Do not simply disappear. Any writer who fails to submit a story or set of reviews on time without explanation will be excluded from the next shootout. Please take this contest seriously, as it is unfair to everyone else involved if someone is not committed.
9: Fresh Material: The purpose and intent of the shootout is to task writers to create short stories within a limited timeframe. Each round, writers are asked to write 1 story in 1 week, based on a particular theme. It is asked that writers only submit stories they have written within this 1-week timeframe, even if they happen to have a previously-written story that fits the theme. Fresh material exclusively, please.
10: Intellectual Property Rights: Authors affirm that they are the sole creators of the stories they are submitting during the shootout. Stories must be the product of the actual participant, and not another writer.
