We’ve got time for one more navel-gazing blogosphere (err, bloggernacle choir) post, and here it is. I’m now accepting nominations for Post of the Month for March 2004. Here are the rules:
1. Any post in the LDS blogosphere, on any blog, is eligible, as long as it was posted during the month of March. (What is the LDS blogosphere? I’m looking for posts that deal with an LDS or LDS-related issue, or that approach an issue in an LDS way. This is a pretty loose and forgiving standard; mainly, I don’t want to see nominations of purely political, legal, or other off-topic posts — “John Kerry is a good/bad candidate because __” — even if they are well-written posts and were posted by an LDS blogger).
2. To be considered by the judges, a post must be nominated and seconded in the comments section of this post.
3. Commenters may nominate only one post. (They may second as many as they want to).
(i.e., comments should be along the lines of:
Adam – I nominate Jim’s post of __ date.
Kristine – I second the nomination of Jim’s post.
Kristine – I nominate Dave’s post of __ date.
etc.)
4. Judging will be performed by a secret, hand-picked panel.
5. No one may nominate or second their own post. Also, as organizer of this event, I will not nominate or second any posts.
6. The prize will be recognition of the post as Post of the Month. A small monetary prize, like a $10 Amazon gift certificate, may also be awarded.
7. How will the posts be judged? That’s a good question. Generally, I believe the judges will try to reward original, well-thought, important posts. Perhaps a post that makes people think about a new way to approach the Book of Mormon, or that presents a new, exciting thought on the atonement. Hopefully we will have lots of nominations of posts that reflect high-quality, in-depth, interesting, and provocative blogosphere participation.
8. The nomination process will close at midnight on April 5. That should be enough time to sort through, nominate, second, and discuss posts.
9. Further discussion of posts in the comment section is welcomed. “I really liked Bob’s post because it ___” are encouraged. Attacks on posts are not encouraged.
10. Posts will be judged on their content, not on the comments they did or did not generate. (It seemed unfair to allow comments to be considered, since not all blogs have comments, and some blogs have more comment participation than others).
11. Any questions, comments, or suggestions can be sent to me. If this contest works well, it may become a monthly (?) feature.
Nominations are now open.
EDIT: Added rule #10, renumbered #11.
I’d like to nominate this post by Karen on BCC on March 16: http://rameumptom.blogspot.com/2004_03_14_rameumptom_archive.html#107946758838667481
It suggested a new perspective to me on gender discrimination, told a heartbreaking story, and spawned a fireball of discussion that (momentarily) engulfed the Bloggernacle.
Dave–I second Steve’s nomination of Karen’s post. Anything that generates 104 comments (especially when you have to write in that tiny little Haloscan box without a preview function) deserves serious consideration.
Julie’s “A Talk I’ve Never Given.” The comments thread got hijacked, but she addressed some of the same gender issues as Karen’s post in a subtle, exceedingly clever and humorous way.
May I propose a rule modification? While attacking would be generally disparaged, the poster posterself would of course be encouraged to attack their own post. Maoist self-criticism is a dying tradition we ought to encourage. :)
Adam’s right — the contestants should do battle. Perhaps a ‘Thunderdome’ format — two blogs enter, one blog leaves?
I nominate Kristine’s “Apologia of a critical believer.” Her thoughts cut directly to the one of the central questions underlying virtually every controversial/difficult topic around here.
On a less serious note, I like the Thunderdome format idea. Might also help boost our readership with wresting fans. Can’t help but think that would be good.
Hello,
The nominations look great so far, (keep it up!), but I suggest you leave the Thunderdome-ing to the secret panel of judges. We will devise our own devious ways for deciding which blogs enter and which ones leave. (The mouse race in Stalag 17, anyone?).
:)
I second the nomination of Kristine’s “Apologia”
A reader e-mailed me to nominate Jim’s discussion of time, available at http://timesandseasons.org/archives/Time.rtf (which Jim discusses at http://timesandseasons.org/archives/000559.html ; for purposes of this contest, I think we can consider these two — the blog post and the typed extended discussion — as being a single event).
I second Kaimi’s construal of the rules.
I nominate Julie’s post, “Why We Doze in Sunday School.” It touches on a crucial issue and is generating a lot of interesting, and helpful, discussion.
Jim, I second the nomination!
I third.
can I be the third point five?
I second the emailer’s suggestion and Kaimi’s nomination of Jim F.’s Time post.
I nominate Nate Oman’s “How Mormons became White.”
http://timesandseasons.org/archives/000537.html
And I second the nomination of Julie’s “Talk I’ve Never Given.”
I’d like to nominate the following:
Kaimi’s “Progression and Perfection of God” (March 8, 2004)
and
Linda’s “Righteous or Wicked?” (March 5, 2004)
Can someone (Kaimi or whoever) fix this so that it links. Thanks.
I second Mormons becoming White, by N. Oman.
I would like to nominate KHH’s ‘Easter Music’, http://timesandseasons.org/archives/000579.html, for its detailed and lengthy discussion of quality Easter music. If we think only those posts which are Revolutionary! are worthy of honor than we are impoverished indeed.
Other posts are worthy of honor:
Gordon Smith on Enhancing Nature, http://timesandseasons.org/archives/000516.html, because is was a very thoughtful post on a subject that (1) addresses a prominent feature of modern culture on which (2) we can draw on scriptural resources and (3) and related modern prophetic speaking but which (4) has somehow not previously inspired much reflection or soulsearching.
Nate’s post on Brigham and Communal Economics, http://timesandseasons.org/archives/000567.html, accomplished the rare feat of citing actual evidence unfamiliar to most of us and contradictory to the received wisdom, though I wish Nate had spent more time trying to explain where the received wisdom came from.
Nate on Using Religious Arguments, http://timesandseasons.org/archives/000519.html, though I’m partly judging it based on the discussion it elicited around the blogosphere.
Jim Faulconer on Dealing with the Day-to-Day, http://timesandseasons.org/archives/000505.html. Like the Julie’s thread on improving teaching, it addressed an immediate concern of our salvation, viz., hometeaching. It did so thoughtfully and usefully, with some reflective asides on learning through practical challenges and shared experience.
Kaimi Wenger’s Lying to our Children, http://timesandseasons.org/archives/000487.html, because it forced me to examine certain of my own fathering practices that I hadn’t examined before.
Nate Oman on The Books to Be Written, http://timesandseasons.org/archives/000483.html. What a great idea for discussion and what great suggestions in the post itself. If I can covet things that don’t exist, that post made me covetous.
For my own post of the month, I nominate, second, and award the prize to Gordon Smith’s Losing a Child, http://timesandseasons.org/archives/000502.html. Gordon was inspired to post at that time for my benefit, if for no one else’s.
I’m closing the comments now. I will meet and confer with the judges, and we’ll figure this out.