Format for POEM OF THE MONTH?
66.67%
• 14 votes •
A. One winner in a given month, that poet cannot win again in the calendar, and should not be nominated until the next year.
19.05%
• 4 votes •
B. Any poet can win in the given month, and poets can multiple times per year.
14.29%
• 3 votes •
C. Choice A or B with the addendum that least three competitions set aside for new poets and or those with less than 10 wins
Format for POEM OF THE MONTH?
How about a change that makes it so that anyone participating in the comp must nominate two poems.
Poem #1: anything of your choice, whatever floats your boat
Poem #2: something you have to work at a bit, meaning search out obscure, new, or members more in the shadows, and/or use the Random Poem Generator (Toolbar--->Poems, Random Poem) and see if something strikes you, and nominate that.
That way, everyone can still nominate their friends and such, but also need to nominate someone unknown to them.
Just a thought.
Poem #1: anything of your choice, whatever floats your boat
Poem #2: something you have to work at a bit, meaning search out obscure, new, or members more in the shadows, and/or use the Random Poem Generator (Toolbar--->Poems, Random Poem) and see if something strikes you, and nominate that.
That way, everyone can still nominate their friends and such, but also need to nominate someone unknown to them.
Just a thought.
Hullo
Missy, I unhid the comp either this morning or yesterday morning so host could find it. must not of had a chance to go through it yet. sorry bout the inconvenience
I think we're all in mostly agreement here far as going forward. an exception may be the amount of trophies already won by a poet (between 10 or 20)
I can understand the thinking behind it (showcase new talents) . seems to complicate things a little though. that's to say it appears to crossover two equally Nobel causes :
poet of the month
showcase new talent
in fairness the latter is undertaken by hosts on a fairly regular basis: a stipulation about trophies. so its not like the two don't already co-exist
plus, as illustrated recently it takes a bit of time to keep things together, so why not make things a simple as possible from day 1 :)-
Missy, Ethan, I do understand your frustrations. I hope you both understand there was no malice involved
Missy, I unhid the comp either this morning or yesterday morning so host could find it. must not of had a chance to go through it yet. sorry bout the inconvenience
I think we're all in mostly agreement here far as going forward. an exception may be the amount of trophies already won by a poet (between 10 or 20)
I can understand the thinking behind it (showcase new talents) . seems to complicate things a little though. that's to say it appears to crossover two equally Nobel causes :
poet of the month
showcase new talent
in fairness the latter is undertaken by hosts on a fairly regular basis: a stipulation about trophies. so its not like the two don't already co-exist
plus, as illustrated recently it takes a bit of time to keep things together, so why not make things a simple as possible from day 1 :)-
Missy, Ethan, I do understand your frustrations. I hope you both understand there was no malice involved
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
Anonymous said:<< post removed >>
You're very welcome, Brando. Poet of the Week was created and is based on the same premise as Poem of the Month: to give the poet more exposure; and, to highlight various poets of DU in hopes writers out within the cyber circle would relate and decide to join.
lepperochan said:Hullo
I think we're all in mostly agreement here far as going forward. an exception may be the amount of trophies already won by a poet (between 10 or 20)
Here's my main issue with that - what if a person has 50 trophies for critique but none for competitions? This means a person who has heavily supported other writers via comments cannot be nominated themselves for Poem of the Month because they have 50 trophies.
So then what? We are charged with evaluating and counting their trophies to see how many are from competitions and how many are from critique? Or would that be San Pedro's job?
The number of trophies shouldn't have anything to do with either the Poet of the Week or Poem of the Month based on the above reason alone. The more trophies one has simply signifies the harder they've worked and supported other poets. Should they be penalized for that? Isn't that what he site encourages?
Therefore, it's a contradiction to encourage members to enter competitions and critique other writers, yet exclude them from site-sponsored comps for that very reason.
You're very welcome, Brando. Poet of the Week was created and is based on the same premise as Poem of the Month: to give the poet more exposure; and, to highlight various poets of DU in hopes writers out within the cyber circle would relate and decide to join.
lepperochan said:Hullo
I think we're all in mostly agreement here far as going forward. an exception may be the amount of trophies already won by a poet (between 10 or 20)
Here's my main issue with that - what if a person has 50 trophies for critique but none for competitions? This means a person who has heavily supported other writers via comments cannot be nominated themselves for Poem of the Month because they have 50 trophies.
So then what? We are charged with evaluating and counting their trophies to see how many are from competitions and how many are from critique? Or would that be San Pedro's job?
The number of trophies shouldn't have anything to do with either the Poet of the Week or Poem of the Month based on the above reason alone. The more trophies one has simply signifies the harder they've worked and supported other poets. Should they be penalized for that? Isn't that what he site encourages?
Therefore, it's a contradiction to encourage members to enter competitions and critique other writers, yet exclude them from site-sponsored comps for that very reason.
Anonymous
And if the comp isn't kept as simple as possible, it's going to be a headache to manage and nobody will want to run it.
Thank you all for your feedback and suggestions ... here’s some response to what’s been put forth so far.
1. LOVE LOVE LOVE ... the idea of a parallel competition, “Discovery of the Month” geared towards the work of newer and lesser known members ...
2. Self nominations WILL NOT be allowed. The great majority of competitions allow for writers to enter their own work under the guidelines of the host (old writes, new writes, no previous winners, no collaborations, collaborations welcome, etc.) ... with that said, the Poem of the Month is designed for members to spotlight the work of their peers, for a change, and say, “Hey, I read this and it’s fantastic ... everyone should read this.”
On that same note, a member can only nominate two poems; and the general consensus seems to be trending towards a writer only being able to win the award once in a calendar year.
As for a panel or committee deciding the winner, that plan opens up the a criticism I’ve heard on this site for years now “ ... the same people keeping hosting & judging comps, in which they choose their same favorites ...”
An open vote is about as an objective as it gets given the nature of the competition.
1. LOVE LOVE LOVE ... the idea of a parallel competition, “Discovery of the Month” geared towards the work of newer and lesser known members ...
2. Self nominations WILL NOT be allowed. The great majority of competitions allow for writers to enter their own work under the guidelines of the host (old writes, new writes, no previous winners, no collaborations, collaborations welcome, etc.) ... with that said, the Poem of the Month is designed for members to spotlight the work of their peers, for a change, and say, “Hey, I read this and it’s fantastic ... everyone should read this.”
On that same note, a member can only nominate two poems; and the general consensus seems to be trending towards a writer only being able to win the award once in a calendar year.
As for a panel or committee deciding the winner, that plan opens up the a criticism I’ve heard on this site for years now “ ... the same people keeping hosting & judging comps, in which they choose their same favorites ...”
An open vote is about as an objective as it gets given the nature of the competition.
... the 10 - 20 trophy limit was only intended as a parameter for November and December of 2019, to get some fresh meat 🥩 so to speak on the grill.
January 2020 resets the clock and ANYONE can be nominated and win, within the guidelines set forth.
January 2020 resets the clock and ANYONE can be nominated and win, within the guidelines set forth.
... in reflecting on some other comments about previous winners not being eligible and it not making sense, the practice of limiting submissions and “winners” is quite common in literature circles ...
I’ve submitted more than a few pieces to publishers, and or outside competitions, to know that if your submission isn’t accepted by a given publisher, they will state in so many words, “don’t bother submitting again for another 6 - 12 months” ...
On the flip side, if you win a competition sponsored by an established group or get published in the larger world - same rule applies - said publisher will say you’re ineligible for the award because of your prior win, and or they won’t publish another piece by you for 6-12 months ...
That’s just the way it works in literature, and as Ahavati has pointed out - I would hope we have enough of a talent pool here to justify a new winner each month ...
I’ve submitted more than a few pieces to publishers, and or outside competitions, to know that if your submission isn’t accepted by a given publisher, they will state in so many words, “don’t bother submitting again for another 6 - 12 months” ...
On the flip side, if you win a competition sponsored by an established group or get published in the larger world - same rule applies - said publisher will say you’re ineligible for the award because of your prior win, and or they won’t publish another piece by you for 6-12 months ...
That’s just the way it works in literature, and as Ahavati has pointed out - I would hope we have enough of a talent pool here to justify a new winner each month ...
In the spirit of a "Discussion" 
LobodeSanPedro said:
2. Self nominations WILL NOT be allowed.
Allowed?? - "Vote and discuss ... there’s no right or wrong answer to this, the goal is to spotlight great writing."(LobodeSanPedro)
So the goal is not to spotlight certain great writing when it excludes some great writing?
LobodeSanPedro said:
a member can only nominate two poems;
Why not one, or six?
LobodeSanPedro said:
the general consensus seems to be trending towards a writer only being able to win the award once in a calendar year.
This was not asked specifically so I am not sure that a consensus has been reached or is possible - certainly hasn't been sought. I for one think it is a terrible idea.
LobodeSanPedro said:
An open vote is about as an objective as it gets given the nature of the competition.
It's not objective when rules of exclusion are in effect and some poems are withdrawn. Or some poems are ineligible. Objectivity is DU comps is as objective as it gets but it is not objective. No one is completely objective, judges in comps, poem nominators, Voters, even MODS
[/quote]
LobodeSanPedro said:
2. Self nominations WILL NOT be allowed.
Allowed?? - "Vote and discuss ... there’s no right or wrong answer to this, the goal is to spotlight great writing."(LobodeSanPedro)
So the goal is not to spotlight certain great writing when it excludes some great writing?
LobodeSanPedro said:
a member can only nominate two poems;
Why not one, or six?
LobodeSanPedro said:
the general consensus seems to be trending towards a writer only being able to win the award once in a calendar year.
This was not asked specifically so I am not sure that a consensus has been reached or is possible - certainly hasn't been sought. I for one think it is a terrible idea.
LobodeSanPedro said:
An open vote is about as an objective as it gets given the nature of the competition.
It's not objective when rules of exclusion are in effect and some poems are withdrawn. Or some poems are ineligible. Objectivity is DU comps is as objective as it gets but it is not objective. No one is completely objective, judges in comps, poem nominators, Voters, even MODS
[/quote]
lobo, i firmly stand behind the idea of 'no self-nominations'.
the author of the work might think it's fabUlous... fair enough, but this competition appears to be (to a newcomer) about highlighting the work of OTHER people, not our own writing. not sure why that's even an issue; it's a solid concept and encourages the reading of other writers=a tool for our own poetic growth.
also, even though i voted C, i can clearly see the votes so far reflect the preference of A—you're never going to please everyone and that's okay. that's life
the author of the work might think it's fabUlous... fair enough, but this competition appears to be (to a newcomer) about highlighting the work of OTHER people, not our own writing. not sure why that's even an issue; it's a solid concept and encourages the reading of other writers=a tool for our own poetic growth.
also, even though i voted C, i can clearly see the votes so far reflect the preference of A—you're never going to please everyone and that's okay. that's life
LobodeSanPedro said:... in reflecting on some other comments about previous winners not being eligible and it not making sense, the practice of limiting submissions and “winners” is quite common in literature circles ...
I’ve submitted more than a few pieces to publishers, and or outside competitions, to know that if your submission isn’t accepted by a given publisher, they will state in so many words, “don’t bother submitting again for another 6 - 12 months” ...
On the flip side, if you win a competition sponsored by an established group or get published in the larger world - same rule applies - said publisher will say you’re ineligible for the award because of your prior win, and or they won’t publish another piece by you for 6-12 months ...
That’s just the way it works in literature, and as Ahavati has pointed out - I would hope we have enough of a talent pool here to justify a new winner each month ...
Yes. There are absolutely DOZENS of wonderful writers on this site. Each one DESERVES a chance for their work to represent DU in Poem of the Month. It CLEARLY appears to me that the majority would like to revert back to the original rules of one win per year.
In regards to anonymity, it's silly in this comp, simply because of the Spoken Word aspect. For example, the remaining videos in October's comp ( the one's not hidden ) clearly show DU avatars, or even a DU member name in the title.
Therefore, if it's not anonymous for one, it shouldn't be for all; however, all comps requesting a public vote are automatically anonymized. Don't know any other way around it than to have a separate comp for Spoken Word of the Month- that way no one is anonymous. LOL!
Keep in mind I do spoken word, and have for years, and my spoken word pieces are often nominated; therefore, I am not referring to specific members - but all members of spoken word, MYSELF included.
As previously stated, anonymity wasn't an issue when developing this comp - but times, they are a changing, my friend.
I’ve submitted more than a few pieces to publishers, and or outside competitions, to know that if your submission isn’t accepted by a given publisher, they will state in so many words, “don’t bother submitting again for another 6 - 12 months” ...
On the flip side, if you win a competition sponsored by an established group or get published in the larger world - same rule applies - said publisher will say you’re ineligible for the award because of your prior win, and or they won’t publish another piece by you for 6-12 months ...
That’s just the way it works in literature, and as Ahavati has pointed out - I would hope we have enough of a talent pool here to justify a new winner each month ...
Yes. There are absolutely DOZENS of wonderful writers on this site. Each one DESERVES a chance for their work to represent DU in Poem of the Month. It CLEARLY appears to me that the majority would like to revert back to the original rules of one win per year.
In regards to anonymity, it's silly in this comp, simply because of the Spoken Word aspect. For example, the remaining videos in October's comp ( the one's not hidden ) clearly show DU avatars, or even a DU member name in the title.
Therefore, if it's not anonymous for one, it shouldn't be for all; however, all comps requesting a public vote are automatically anonymized. Don't know any other way around it than to have a separate comp for Spoken Word of the Month- that way no one is anonymous. LOL!
Keep in mind I do spoken word, and have for years, and my spoken word pieces are often nominated; therefore, I am not referring to specific members - but all members of spoken word, MYSELF included.
As previously stated, anonymity wasn't an issue when developing this comp - but times, they are a changing, my friend.
I think each person should only nominate ONE poem rather than two because if we're trying to highlight (according to our own personal opinion) one excellent, exceptional poem than we need to find that one great poem for that month, not 2!
It will force us to take our time to find that one great poem rather than bank on having a second round to nominate another one.
Secondly, as a suggestion to incorporate the veteran wins along with undiscovered poets how about every fourth month of the year (3 times a year) we can switch it to nominating members who have been here less than 180 days.
On profiles it shows how long someone has been on this site, also it relieves the confusion of less than 10 trophies etc since trophies most often are a combo of wins and supportive commentators. And as the calendar progresses the 180 day rule will apply to newer members coming along.
It will force us to take our time to find that one great poem rather than bank on having a second round to nominate another one.
Secondly, as a suggestion to incorporate the veteran wins along with undiscovered poets how about every fourth month of the year (3 times a year) we can switch it to nominating members who have been here less than 180 days.
On profiles it shows how long someone has been on this site, also it relieves the confusion of less than 10 trophies etc since trophies most often are a combo of wins and supportive commentators. And as the calendar progresses the 180 day rule will apply to newer members coming along.
Layla said:I think each person should only nominate ONE poem rather than two because if we're trying to highlight (according to our own personal opinion) one excellent, exceptional poem than we need to find that one great poem for that month, not 2!
It will force us to take our time to find that one great poem rather than bank on having a second round to nominate another one.
Secondly, as a suggestion to incorporate the veteran wins along with undiscovered poets how about every fourth month of the year (3 times a year) we can switch it to nominating members who have been here less than 180 days.
On profiles it shows how long someone has been on this site, also it relieves the confusion of less than 10 trophies etc since trophies most often are a combo of wins and supportive commentators. And as the calendar progresses the 180 day rule will apply to newer members coming along.these sound like pretty decent adjustments, easily incorporated without too much ado
It will force us to take our time to find that one great poem rather than bank on having a second round to nominate another one.
Secondly, as a suggestion to incorporate the veteran wins along with undiscovered poets how about every fourth month of the year (3 times a year) we can switch it to nominating members who have been here less than 180 days.
On profiles it shows how long someone has been on this site, also it relieves the confusion of less than 10 trophies etc since trophies most often are a combo of wins and supportive commentators. And as the calendar progresses the 180 day rule will apply to newer members coming along.these sound like pretty decent adjustments, easily incorporated without too much ado
I'm for a separate "Discovery of the Month" myself. The Poem of the Month should not be complicated. The more rules that are changed and/or added transforms something historically pleasant and fun into a total nightmare. Let's just return to the way it was ( sans the anonymity aspect unless it can be feasibly addressed ) and let it be.
There is so MUCH room for more, e.g. - Discovery of the Month, Spoken Word of the Month, Whatever of the Month. This would also be more members and content to feature across the networks. Why stuff so much into one which has always been pleasant and drama-free ( until now ), when there is so much room for more?
Just my two cents.
There is so MUCH room for more, e.g. - Discovery of the Month, Spoken Word of the Month, Whatever of the Month. This would also be more members and content to feature across the networks. Why stuff so much into one which has always been pleasant and drama-free ( until now ), when there is so much room for more?
Just my two cents.
