Post Number: 158
|Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 10:27 am: ||
dear mrs chrispy --- hard to imagine, but i had somehow (yet again) imagined that march 23rd and 24th had conveniently occurred tuesday and wednesday leaving today in a gauzy white gown all ready to be posted to. though now that i (yet again) check the calendar it appears that my first calculations were correct and therefore it is not necessary that i plead with you to delete Continental Drift so that i may proceed with my nominal life un-flushed by any farther slaps to the wrist at-this-time. HOWEVER, as i drove to work i
brooded as i am wont to (i will practically stand on my head in order to use "wont to").in addition to the sudden flagrant burgeoning of wheat grass and my allergy to same i began puzzling over the whole "postings" situation. i have no hope of nor intention to change the status quo, but it suddenly seems to me that at its core the posting rules are marginally irrational, i.e., most of your subscribers are at least nominally reasonable and therefore might be thought to be capable of making their own decisions as to what they do and/or do not wish to read. i can safely say (ok, admittedly my case tends to be ... uneven) that i could glance through a list of 300 poems and not be abruptly mangled by any one of them into reading a piece that i did not wish to read. the idea that by strenuously limiting opportunities to post, utter confusion and overwhelming versifying is being avoided seems rather a stalking horse. as i recall, Machado, for example, wrote practically continually; his vast output is of variable quality yet no one, i truly believe, ever felt coerced into reading or NOT reading a single word he wrote. my two cents. let's hear it for chaos theory. in any case, thanks for running a difficult show, thank you for for considering my daily carp.
Staff Trace Estes
Post Number: 160
|Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 11:44 am: ||
let's look at it like this:
A poet of your caliber comes in and posts whenever they choose.
And instead of 2 poems a week (now officially changed to 1 poem every 3 days) a top-notched poet gets on a streak and posts 3 or 4.
Maybe if a lot of those top-notched poets thought the same way--"no one is forcing you to read my stuff--it's your choice"
so 3/ a week--heck 4/ a week--times 10 top poets.
30 poems of the high grade verse from you (et al)
and then the lowly newbie comes by and posts one a week. Just being a newbie carries a strike. Maybe their stuff isn't as polished as yours, so critiquers are going to gravitate toward the better stuff.
Now since this is a workshop--not a vanity board---it kinds of defeats the purpose.
the idea that by strenuously limiting opportunities to post, utter confusion and overwhelming versifying is being avoided seems rather a stalking horse.
limiting opportunities? Really? How 'bout we have a system (rules) set up that most folks follow so that everything is on an even playing field.
Let's do the math together:
21 + 3 Days should = the 24th
instead bing--2 days (the 23rd}
23rd + 3 days should = the 26th
instead bing--2 days (the 25th)
So slaps on the wrist--nah. Just making it fair.
So keeping it to every 3 days helps us all.
That way we won't shut down threads for 24 hrs
and be accused of being mean.
Heck, we understand the creative flow. we get it too, as probably most of our members.
My suggestion--if you just can't wait another day for feedback--email it to trusted critics.
I hope this doesn't sound fliipant or aggressive---it was not meant as either. I look for your name on my threads because I respect your eye.
(Message edited by staff_trace on March 25, 2010)
Be the person your dog
already thinks you are
Post Number: 160
|Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 01:01 pm: ||
thanks for taking the time trace, but i think you somewhat, in the context of reprising my comments for me, evade the point. there is no question but that my crimes are legion even if generally petty; i contend though that your shy newbie is artifactual rather than highly likely. Truth: i am far more likely to read the work of someone new than of someone whose work i may be more or less inured to. you (mildly) tweak me as supposing others do not share in "the creative flow" and of being unwilling to "wait another day for feedback." i think you and i may not be on quite intimate enough a footing as warrants such assumptions. as aforementioned, i harbor no hope for changing basic tenets here, i instead indulge myself in the pleasure and satisfactions of expressing a dissenting view.
Staff Richard Jordan
Post Number: 355
|Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 07:36 pm: ||
Of course writing poems at a rate greater than one every three days is not against any site rules. Posting new poems at or beyond that rate is.
Which is to say: the posting rule imposes no constraints on how often anyone writes poems, does it? So your leap from the posting frequency rule to the rate of creative output puzzles me.
I mean, I hope the frequency with which you write has nothing at all to do with the frequency with which you're allowed to post at this site, or any other.
By the way, I'm not trying to be clever or sarcastic, or anything like that. I just want to make it 100% clear that the posting guideline is not at all a statement by Gaz Staff about an "appropriate" limit on the rate of the creation of poems.
Heck, I don't think any of us would ever even imagine such a thing
Post Number: 163
|Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 08:25 pm: ||
hi richard and good of you to take the time. but i am perplexed. it has never even distantly occurred to me that gaz would want to limit anyones poetic output. admittedly i am feeling at the moment a tad gun shy, but i truly believed that i was making myself very clear: i think it's plain silly for anyone to worry that new poets will be slighted if they/we have to "compete" with more established poets. for the record, the poets i'm most likely to avoid reading
are older and smug, for which i try hard not to hold them responsible, being myself old and (sometimes) smug. my very unoriginal advice: Let It Be.
Staff Christine Potter
Post Number: 428
|Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 09:52 pm: ||
What Rich said, pretty much exactly. The rules we have are here for a reason. It's not new poets vs. older voices; it's just sharing the conversation as you would a a dinner party. It's being cool. Manners.
I think the more poems the merrier. But to keep the discourse on our board balanced, we have a rule: one new poem every 72 hours. You can WRITE all you want, but you can hire the workship only every three days. I think that's fair.
Otherwise, it begins to look to a prospective new member like only a few poets are active here, when the fact is that most of us move at a more measured pace. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH WRITING LOTS, FAST. But monopolizing the board is not OK. It is selfish.
That's all we're saying.
Thanks for listening,
head moderator, The Gazebo
Staff Richard Jordan
Post Number: 356
|Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 10:11 pm: ||
Hmm...the idea that by strenuously limiting opportunities to post...overwhelming versifying is being avoided...
That's what led me to think you were somehow equating posting restrictions with restrictions on writing. Guess I misinterpreted.
In any case, you're free to disagree and/or disapprove with guidelines. But we still expect all members to adhere to the guidelines, and anyone who has joined the site has implicitly agreed to do so. Fortunately almost everyone sticks to the guidelines, so we moderators don't have to do much enforcing at all.
Post Number: 4
|Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 09:28 pm: ||
Laurel - you anarchist, quit being so stubborn.