Thanks for your kind words. And, great article...
It's not clear to me that, of "the many interesting things [you] learned from [your] study of awards," those same attributes were not accomplished by Chase, yet Chase was a (thinly vieled) runner-up in your "Just Awards." Also, I do not think that offering a process in which calling someone "Abominable" or a "Narcissist" when the nominator knows that her identity will be kept secret, while the affect of her opinion will be made public, is a mature way to offer criticism. If someone wants to be glib, ironic or insulting, it is probably best to do it openly and claim those opinions. I understand your intended affect, and you may have achieved it (we'll never know how many people were nominated, how their nominees were treated by judges, etc.). We do know that you and your other judges don't like a particular piece of journalism and a particular person, not much more.
The main point of this article is that when trying to use prizes, challenges and open-sourcing, it is essential to start with principles of "fairness, openness and transparency." If we can start there, then everyone will be better off.
I'd welcome the chance to talk about these and other issues raised in the article off line? Feel free to "friend" me at Change.org, and we can discuss.