Poetry Discussion Circle - part 2

[Lauren Hynde]

Now that we decided in favour of having a focused-discussion sub-forum - and by a very wide consensus, I'm happy to say - we need to talk about how to do it. From the suggestions posted on the other thread, I would say there are two different basic models we can consider:

Model 1: Similar to what happens currently in the Story Discussion Circle, this model would privilege focus and group discussion over quantity and response-speed levels. Just as in the SDC, there would be a queue thread, where people would sign up for having their poems reviewed. Threads would be started by the moderators only, at a rate of one new poem/thread per day, or based on participation level. People would need to comment on two other poems before adding themselves to the queue.

This means that the sub-forum would be slower paced, but would promote in-depth discussion further. Each poem/thread would be guaranteed a minimum amount of time in the spotlight, so to speak, during which it would ideally become the attention focus of many of us simultaneously.

It also means that there would be a lot less fluctuation in the level of participation than if it were a less controlled forum. E.g. on Angeline's Poetry Workshop, there were 6 poems posted for review during the first 24 hours of the thread, and 1 in the 6 days since then. With this model, those same 7 poems would have been evenly distributed through the last 7 days. None of them would get in another poem's way, either physically or temporally, so each of them would be more likely to get good comments and trigger good discussions.

None of the poems/threads would ever be closed, which means that if someone were to go away for a week, he or she would return to find up to 7 new poems to comment on and could easily catch up.



Model 2: Similar to what happens on many poetry-only internet forums, this model would facilitate a higher number of poems being posted, but participation and level of critique would be more vulnerable to fluctuations. There would be no need for a queue, and each poet would be able to start their own threads when he or she desired, but only after commenting on three other poems.

This model would probably result in more poems being commented on, but each of them could receive less comments, and some poems might be overshadowed by others posted at the same time.

It is also a model that relies more on the good-intentions of all the poets participating, because technically there's nothing to stop someone coming in for the first time and simply posting a poem for critique, without first commenting on others. It would require the community to police itself a bit, so to speak. On other poetry-only internet forums, this isn't usually a problem, because most people agree when it comes to what it takes to be a part of a forum of this nature.

Same as the other model, none of the poems/threads would ever be closed to discussion, obviously.

Finally, and this part is only my personal opinion, I think that this more informal model doesn't make full use of being a separate sub-forum. I mean, other than the obligation of commenting on other poems as well - which is only good form anyway - doesn't really offer much beyond what is already possible to do in the Poetry Feedback & Discussion main forum as it is today and as it will continue to be. I can simply post a thread asking for feedback on one of my poems and more or less feedback of some sort will surely be given.

(read post #15 of this thread as well, by annaswirls)​

So, what will it be?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Oh, one more thing. Some of you manifested concern about the workload that keeping this sub-forum would require from the moderators. (Thank you!) Please choose which model you think is best for its own merits, and don't worry about us. WickedEve has already said she will return to her position (no jokes ) as one of The Poets, and we also recruited additional help.

And between the two models, I honestly don't know which is more demanding. #1 would require daily work, keeping an eye on the queue and adding a new thread every day. #2 would require more attention to off-topic posts and threads, would be more vulnerable to spam and flooding, and would cause more hassles and friction between moderators and people whose threads had to be moved out for one reason or another... I think the workload would be comparable.

 

[champagne1982]

I have to say that I think the Poem Discussion Circle should go with Model 1 as the basic format. I have participated in the Story Discussion Circle and found the input of the author's there, on the guided critique threads, to be more than helpful and very educational. I still lurk as a reader sometimes and if I ever get off my ass and write another story, I may even go over and take a run at the workshop threads.

So, for guided discussion on poetry, as submitted by the authors of the poems, I think a forum based on "Model 1" would be the most effective way to ensure that all participants are treated fairly.

 

[mischievousgrin]

hmm..my first reaction is to opt for version 1....however as im entirely new to poetry forums in general, i'm going to see if someone can convince me otherwise before I actually vote.

Hi lauren

 

[champagne1982]

hmm..my first reaction is to opt for version 1....however as im entirely new to poetry forums in general, i'm going to see if someone can convince me otherwise before I actually vote.

Hi lauren

Model 2 is basically an ideal outline of how the feedback threads on this main forum should be working already. To create a subforum with the same format as we enjoy now, the only difference being intensive and intrusive moderation, would be next to pointless, I think.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Hi lauren

Hello.


And yes, Carrie, I personally agree with what you said.*

*even knowing this will mean automatic #2 votes by the usual suspects...

 

[impressive]

You forgot the "I don't have a preference & will play nice with either model" option.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

You forgot the "I don't have a preference & will play nice with either model" option.

I wanted to keep it simple. I assume most reasonable people would play nice with either model.

 

[Reltne]

I may comment under a type 1 format, but I will not submit.

I also personally object to your blatant lobbying.


Pax, Reltne

 

[impressive]

I assume most reasonable people would play nice with either model.

And the unreasonable people with neither?

 

[Tathagata]

I may comment under a type 1 format, but I will not submit.

I also personally object to your blatant lobbying.


Pax, Reltne

Lighten up Francis

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b4db35b3127ccebe2b727d625a0000001610

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I also personally object to your blatant lobbying.

As a moderator, I presented the pros and cons of the two choices. As a community member, I'm entitled to an opinion just the same as anyone else, am I not?

Besides, any lobbying from me is practically assured to backfire.

 

[Guest]

I've been on several poetry boards with the landscape of option number two and a board owner also. I just don't believe it works very well because it ends up being a popularity contest, which harbors sore feelings and resentment. We should all be adults that we are, learn something to enrich our poetry writing skills, and I think model number one is the best plan to accomplish that.

 

[WickedEve]

Lauren, I like the sound of model one, though I have frequented boards in the past that use model 2. I have to admit that I liked M2, but I'm curious to give the first choice a try and see how that goes. As soon as you get the subbie forum going, I'll be more active around here as a mod. Right now, things seem quieter. Yes?

 

[annaswirls]

Now that we decided in favour of having a focused-discussion sub-forum - and by a very wide consensus, I'm happy to say - we need to talk about how to do it. From the suggestions posted on the other thread, I would say there are two different basic models we can consider:

Model 1: Similar to what happens currently in the Story Discussion Circle, this model would privilege focus and group discussion over quantity and response-speed levels. Just as in the SDC, there would be a queue thread, where people would sign up for having their poems reviewed. Threads would be started by the moderators only, at a rate of one new poem/thread per day, or based on participation level. People would need to comment on two other poems before adding themselves to the queue.

This means that the sub-forum would be slower paced, but would promote in-depth discussion further. Each poem/thread would be guaranteed a minimum amount of time in the spotlight, so to speak, during which it would ideally become the attention focus of many of us simultaneously.

It also means that there would be a lot less fluctuation in the level of participation than if it were a less controlled forum. E.g. on Angeline's Poetry Workshop, there were 6 poems posted for review during the first 24 hours of the thread, and 1 in the 6 days since then. With this model, those same 7 poems would have been evenly distributed through the last 7 days. None of them would get in another poem's way, either physically or temporally, so each of them would be more likely to get good comments and trigger good discussions.

None of the poems/threads would ever be closed, which means that if someone were to go away for a week, he or she would return to find up to 7 new poems to comment on and could easily catch up.



Model 2: Similar to what happens on many poetry-only internet forums, this model would facilitate a higher number of poems being posted, but participation and level of critique would be more vulnerable to fluctuations. There would be no need for a queue, and each poet would be able to start their own threads when he or she desired, but only after commenting on three other poems.

This model would probably result in more poems being commented on, but each of them could receive less comments, and some poems might be overshadowed by others posted at the same time.

It is also a model that relies more on the good-intentions of all the poets participating, because technically there's nothing to stop someone coming in for the first time and simply posting a poem for critique, without first commenting on others. It would require the community to police itself a bit, so to speak. On other poetry-only internet forums, this isn't usually a problem, because most people agree when it comes to what it takes to be a part of a forum of this nature.

Same as the other model, none of the poems/threads would ever be closed to discussion, obviously.

Finally, and this part is only my personal opinion, Just this part? That's a joke, right

I think that this more informal model doesn't make full use of being a separate sub-forum. I mean, other than the obligation of commenting on other poems as well - which is only good form anyway - doesn't really offer much beyond what is already possible to do in the Poetry Feedback & Discussion main forum as it is today and as it will continue to be. I can simply post a thread asking for feedback on one of my poems and more or less feedback of some sort will surely be given.​

So, what will it be?

I am not sure which way to vote, but wanted to make a clarification: The 3-4 poetry forums I have been to follow something approximating model 2, but the cons listed above were not true in their case. They do require that people post 2 comments before adding a poem to review.

They also have maximum poems you can post a day/week no matter how many critiques you give. They also have frowned upon two sentence critiques just to get the requirement out of the way. One such forum had levels of participation-- light critique up to intensive. You had to give intensive critique to get it. These are not pro's or cons, just personal report on their guidelines without my prediction on the results of such guidelines. People can make those predictions by themselves after reading the facts.

One forum set aside one day a week where you were only allowed to comment, no new poems were posted.

Many of these guidelines were exactly that, guidelines. People were not necessarily policed unless blatantly breaking the number of poems posted or comments given. It was a matter of common courtesy and not wanting everyone getting pissed at you or thinking you are a jerk for trying to get more than you give.

"doesn't really offer much beyond what is already possible to do in the Poetry Feedback & Discussion main forum as it is today "

Except in my observation, many people come in for the first time, post a poem or two or three and never offer anything to the forum. There are no guidelines, it is completely random. Many people post things without saying what they want, which causes confusion and hurt feelings...some people might just want reassuring comments, which is Fine, but if we don't know what they want...it is hard to give it. In the sub-forum it could be clearly defined what you are going to get if you post there.

Personal opinion: In model 1, tne 1 poem/thread per day seems completely reasonable! I thought the proposal was that they be kept up until finished.

If the decision of which poem gets put up next is a function of anything beyond making sure people get their first poem reviewed before someone else gets their 2,3 etc. poem reviewed and if they meet the pre-requisite # of comments, then that leaves the selection way open to criticism (of the selectors) and that is very tricky, especially when the leadership are also social members of the community and not without personal taste, friends, bias (they are human!) that they might not even be in touch with or realize is effecting their judgement.... I would not want to be left open to that responsibility. It sounds like a logistical nightmare, but if it works in the Story realm, I can't see why it wouldn't work here, if the mods are careful to keep the decisions fair, impersonal and free of their opinions. I am not assuming that they will or will not, it is just a tricky situation.

as

 

[Rybka]

Congrats Anna on your first published photos! - However when I get to the site and click on Art:
autocartography & abstract nudes
by Jennifer VanBuren & Alex Nodopaka

nothing happens. The other links work, but that one is dead.

 

[annaswirls]

Congrats Anna on your first published photos! - However when I get to the site and click on Art:
autocartography & abstract nudes
by Jennifer VanBuren & Alex Nodopaka

nothing happens. The other links work, but that one is dead.

Yeah I noticed that. I think I might have forgotten to send them the information? I will ask them to link it up to our bios. I just hate to bug people I squint thinking about asking them to update our bio from a few months ago I am such a pussy.

It was cool to be on with other literotica folks who I am not sure want to make an announcement so I am shushing....

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I am not sure which way to vote, but wanted to make a clarification: The 3-4 poetry forums I have been to follow something approximating model 2, but the cons listed above were not true in their case.

You're probably right, Anna, and I apologise. Model 2 does work well on poetry-only forums. The cons I listed weren't necessarily cons on those other boards, and I did say that. My predictions of Model 2 guidelines being applied here were a result of Literotica not being a poetry-only board, but with visitors with the most varied intentions and expectations.

If the decision of which poem gets put up next is a function of anything beyond making sure people get their first poem reviewed before someone else gets their 2,3 etc. poem reviewed and if they meet the pre-requisite # of comments, then that leaves the selection way open to criticism (of the selectors) and that is very tricky, especially when the leadership are also social members of the community and not without personal taste, friends, bias (they are human!) that they might not even be in touch with or realize is effecting their judgement.... I would not want to be left open to that responsibility. It sounds like a logistical nightmare, but if it works in the Story realm, I can't see why it wouldn't work here, if the mods are careful to keep the decisions fair, impersonal and free of their opinions. I am not assuming that they will or will not, it is just a tricky situation.

as

That's a good point, Anna. What happens in SDC leaves no room for bias, I believe. Selection is a function of who posts first to the queue thread, with at least 2 critiques made. And of course that it would be only natural that people looking to have a poem commented on for the first time would be bumped up the queue line ahead of those who had already received comments before.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

By the way, Eve put this very well when she said she's "curious to give the [whatever] choice a try and see how that goes."

That's all this is, really. Deciding what we'll try first. If it doesn't work, we can always turn to the other one. Nothing is ever set in stone.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Only 11 votes so far, folks. And let's hear some discussion too!

 

[bluerains]

thats very

By the way, Eve put this very well when she said she's "curious to give the [whatever] choice a try and see how that goes."

That's all this is, really. Deciding what we'll try first. If it doesn't work, we can always turn to the other one. Nothing is ever set in stone.

flexible I like flow and change and knowing that things are never set in stone...hats off...

 

[Lauren Hynde]

 

[Liar]

Model 2 is basically an ideal outline of how the feedback threads on this main forum should be working already. To create a subforum with the same format as we enjoy now, the only difference being intensive and intrusive moderation, would be next to pointless, I think.

Yah, me too.

I still think we could just as well (or even preferrably) have SDC style activity in dedicated threads on this forum, but if everyone else wants a sub-forum, I ain't gonna object. Version 1 is then the way to go.

 

[Vampiric_Mirage]

I think Model 1 is the best way for each poem to get the feedback it deserves. Although I admit I don't give constructive criticism as much as I'd like to, I still thinks it's sad when a poet tries to get feedback to help them make a poem better, but they ask for it on a day when no one is online, or for whatever reason they don't get many (or sometimes any) responses.

Although Model 2 has strengths as well, I think Model 1 should be tried first.

Good luck with the workload on either! Wow you guys never cease to amaze me at how much some of you are willing to do!

 

[sophia jane]

I'm going with Model 1. I wonder if a new poem each day is too quick, though.

I'm also curious if there will be any rules/moderation about the way critique/criticism/suggestions are offered. I would hate for a poet to get discouraged by criticisms that offer nothing constructive.