Style Conversational Week 1259: How can Losers win so much? One Invitational contestant’s idea: Bar high-scorers for a while so others can get more ink If you read The Style Conversational, you are hereby invited to the Jan. 13 potluck. Details below. (Craig Dykstra) By Pat Myers Pat Myers Editor and judge of The Style Invitational since December 2003 Email // Bio // Follow // December 21, 2017 People have been complaining about favoritism and inequality in The Style Invitational since it was barely out of the maternity ward: Preceding the results of /Week 6, / in 1993, my predecessor, the anonymous Czar , added this: “But first, a few words about excellence. Although we received more than 500 entries to this contest, and have selected only 15 of them as winners [we’ve grown!], you will note that several people are represented more than once, including the highly mysterious “Oslo of Alexandria,” the first-prize winner of Week 2 who darn near won again this week [The Post no longer allows pseudonyms]. You may reasonably wonder: Is this fair? Answer: Of course it is fair. The Style Invitational is the nation’s last remaining pure meritocracy. The best is chosen, without regard to previous history, demographics, national origin, sexual orientation, dental anomalies, annoying personal habits, or cash inducements you may have included with your letters. In fact, our judging is done completely blindfolded, so we cannot see your name, or your address, or your entry. We hope this clears matters up. Thank you.” Now slide your time-bar thingy up 24.75 years to last Thursday. A week ago, shortly after I posted last week’s results , I got this email from Dinah Rokach of the D.C. area (she was fine with my reprinting it here): /As a relatively new entrant, I find it disconcerting that there are so many repeated mentions of the same individuals in your weekly column./ /Have you thought of a rule whereby prize recipients are limited, as in other periodicals’ contests, to once per set interval — month, every ten contests, for example? / /With all due respect, it looks like you have your favorites (Facebook group, perhaps?) whose submissions you scrutinize carefully and then possibly pay less attention to the others. With so many entries that’s understandable but perhaps spreading the glory should take priority./ /Just a thought, Dinah/ For several years now, as I note in the Style Invitational Rules and Guidelines (to which a link appears in each week’s contest), I’ve been able to judge the Invite without seeing the entrants’ names — something that the Czar, in the pre-Internet and even pre-email days, couldn’t do. It takes an hour or so of tedium each week to make a readable list, but it’s worth it when I receive letters like this. And so I was able to respond: /Dear Dinah: / /Thanks for writing. But actually, I have NO IDEA whose entries I am judging until after I choose the winners. / /I get all the entries in one long continuous list, then make my choices. That way, I can’t even unconsciously play favorites – which makes it easier to answer accusations like yours. / /After I choose the winners I search a second, complete list of entries find out who wrote those entries. As you noted, some people get a lot of ink. But it can’t be because I like them personally (or I can’t be denying ink to someone whom I don’t like). / /The reason that some people get so much ink is they are (you might notice) really good at this game. They’re not only naturally funny and clever, but for some of these people, the Invitational is one of their favorite pastimes, and they work on compiling a list of 25 entries all week long; some of them work up longer lists, then polish them, then choose their very best to send to me. Should I tell them that it’s unfair to put in so much effort? Also remember that while the incredibly clever Jesse Frankovich got three entries in today, he also had 22 entries rejected. / /On the other hand, it’s not at all the case that only frequent-inkers appear in the Invitational. Today’s results featured FORTY different entrants. Three of them got their first ink ever. Two more got their second ink. Others have been sending in entries now and again over the past 25 years and have accrued eight or ten or a dozen. More than 5,000 people have gotten ink in The Style Invitational over its history. I’m always thrilled to see new names among the results./ /But each week – and I’ve done this more than 700 times — I choose (as I said, blindly) the entries that I liked the most. I don’t think it would benefit the contest or its readers to run entries that I didn’t find as good as some others, merely because their writers were also good last week. / /Rest assured that I read and consider every entry that I get each week. If you would like me to look yours up and explain why yours didn’t make the top 54 this week among the 2,200 entries, I can explain my thinking. Let me know. / /Thanks for taking the time to write, and I’d be just as delighted as you (well, almost) to see you get ink in a future contest. / /Best, The Empress/ Dinah thanked me for my reply, declined my offer of a critique of her half-dozen entries in Week 1254, but continued to press her case for her block-the-winners idea, adding some new angles: /... But might you consider, as other periodicals do, asking winners not to submit for a set period of time after winning? Or just letting them know they will be not be eligible to be chosen as winners during that time frame? ... / /Having announced your new criterion, if the winners whom you choose “blind” turn out to be ineligible for that reason, just continue with an alternate selection. / /The repeat winners may even thank you for giving them back some of their free time. If you ask your colleagues on the health beat, they might concur with the assessment that it’s a good thing to discourage obsessive behavior. It may also broaden your own “constituency” — readers who may have become discouraged — not so much for never themselves winning — but for seeing the same winning names over and over again albeit chosen in an unbiased process./ Well, /I’m / not a Style Invitational entrant or potential entrant, but I know where to find them — not just the Obsessives, as I’ve been calling them lately, but also infrequent entrants (including unsuccessful ones) and even just-fans: And that’s the Style Invitational Devotees group on Facebook, which now numbers more than 1,450 members. So I deleted Dinah’s name from her letter and asked the Devs’ opinions; I thought there was a chance that some of them would like the suggestion. In short, /nobody,/ among the 48 commenters plus responders to those comments , said this would be a good idea. Here’s a sampling of the responses: — /From someone with a couple of inks over the years:/ “If the ‘constituency’ includes the Post subscribers like me, who read it for humor, but rarely or never enter, then you won’t be able to broaden the constituency by weakening the level of humor.” — “Her concern for our OCD is commendable.” — “I entered, I think, six contests this year. ... I inked zero times. Shock horror. I enter because it’s a fun way to occupy my brain for a bit and force myself to do even a tiny bit of writing. If I ever manage to lose One-Hit Wonder status, it will be a fluke, but that won’t stop me from feeling extra clever and emailing every relative who thinks jokes about testicles are funny, my mother included. (She printed my “Ink of the Day” and put it on her refrigerator.)” /— From someone who has no ink: / “Don’t punish talent. Real ink must be earned.” —/From someone with one ink:/ “As far as I know, the purpose of the SI is to generate content to amuse paid subscribers. Your method generates the best content. Once the Patriots tell Tom Brady that he’s already played a game this season and it’s someone else’s turn to be QB, then we can consider the participation ribbon approach over quality.” /— From a frequently Inking Loser: / “Nah, I don’t want to think i won just because the regulars weren’t in the mix.” /— Along the same line, from another regular: / “Imagine how bad the person would feel when she still didn’t get ink with the varsity players sidelined. ... It is the Empress’s job to select the funniest entries for the purpose of bringing the most laughs to the readers. It would be dereliction of duty to do otherwise.” /And another:/ “As a Cleveland Browns fan, I find it disconcerting that the Patriots are in the Super Bowl so much. Have you thought of a rule whereby teams can only make the playoffs once every three years? With all due respect, it looks like you favor the ones with better records.” Meanwhile, Biggest Loser Ever Chris Doyle noted that “this year’s distribution of Lose Cannon winners isn’t that unbalanced. So far 33 different Losers have won the 41 contests.” So I guess we’ll be continuing with the Meritocracy Model that we’ve been using since Week 1. And when Dinah finally gets her ink, beating out the regular winners, she’s going to be justifiably proud as all get-out. *DID YOU GET YOUR LOSER POST-HOLIDAY PARTY INVITATION? * I sent an Evite out around 3 a.m. Eastern time today (yeah, I know, not so healthy) for the annual Loser Post-Holiday Party, the evening of Saturday, Jan. 13 — a potluck once again at the right-near-the-Metro home of Loser Steve Langer and Honorary Loser Allison Fultz in Chevy Chase, Md., right over the D.C. line. I used last year’s mailing list and added a few names of locals who I thought might want to come. But YOU are also invited — if you’re interested enough in The Style Invitational to read this column, you’re crazy enough for us. So here’s the link to the Evite , with all the details; if you RSVP to it, that should put you on the list as well. (If you are a total stranger — never sent an entry, etc. — the Empress will chat with you first.) *Also: On Saturday, Dec. 30, * visiting-from-Texas Edward Gordon would like to have lunch with some fellow Losers at Hard Times Cafe near the King Street Metro station in Alexandria, Va. I’ll be there; email me if you’ll be as well. It’s a chili joint. *Winning ANTSers: The results of Week 1255* /(*Non-inking headline by John O’Byrne)/ Chris Doyle, of the almost 2,000 blots of ink and Who Should Know, ventured that the S-A-N-T letter block for our 14th annual Tour de Fours neologism contest was the most challenging yet. But that didn’t stop 32 Losers (including Chris) from snarfing up 42 blots of ink in Week 1255, using many of the 24 possible permutations. Because “Natsturtium” — a flower that blossoms in the spring and always withers by early October — turned out to be very similar entries from Jeff Shirley and Duncan Stevens, we have five member of the Losers’ Circle this week, all of them (sorry!) regular entrants. It’s Ann Martin’s fourth win and 90th blot of ink, and runners-up Jeff, Duncan and Mark Raffman are even more heavily stained. But we also have two First Offenders — three if you count both Mark and Emily Schwartz, who sent their “Standex” entry (a fabric so tight you can’t sit down) together. (In the future, I’d rather the Schwartzes — and all of you — enter individually; the Invite isn’t a team contest, except for the rare photo contests, videos, etc. Meanwhile, Mark and Emily can fight over their single FirStink for their first ink.) *What Doug Dug: * Ace Copy Editor Doug Norwood liked all four “above the fold” winners (as did, for once, my predecessor, the Czar) and also singled out Christy Tosatto’s “Tyrantsylvania,” Jon Gearhart’s “Tyrantasaurus Vex” — I’m glad I didn’t worry that two “tyrant” entries were too many — Jesse Frankovich’s “Misspokahontas,” Jeff Hazle’s “rantasaur” and Duncan Stevens’s “satn.” (You haven’t heard of The Weeknd? Then you’re not one of the 293,337,786 people, as of this minute, who have viewed the music video “I Feel It Coming” on YouTube.) *Jest NASTy*: A couple of unprintables * and they’re plays on the same word: Cat Snatch Fever: A feline STD. Snatch: Synonym for “grab.” — D.J.T., Washington (Roy Ashley, Dean Pollock) */Suggestion for this very purpose by Jesse Frankovich/ -- So have a fabulous Christmas holiday, everyone — note that you don’t have to send your Week 1258 entries till Dec. 26 — and I hope to see you at the Loser party or at the Ed thing.