On Feb 17, 6:18 am, Hieronymous House <
hieronymous...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> To all potential players, a list of proposed rules:
>
> 1. All entries must be original to the author. Previously posted works are not allowed. The winner of each round has the option of resubmitting the same piece for subsequent rounds, or offering something new for consideration.
>
> 2. Deadlines are final. It's up to you to get your entries in on time. You will have at least 48 hours notice, posted in group, that entries are due.
>
> 3. Writing styles of some contributors may suggest their identity, but the contest is anonymous until the final around. Entries may not contain name dropping self-references.
>
> 4. First round entries limited to 32 lines.
>
> 5. Pieces will be paired and posted in the order that they are received. An ode may face-off against a sonnet, or a limerick against a villanelle, or a blank verse may face a rap rhyme, or whatever whatever, etc. etc.
>
> 6. Participants must vote in every round, and yes, you may vote for yourself.
>
> 7. Non-participants are encouraged to vote as well. Socks puppet comments are invited, but their votes won't count. You know who you are.
>
> 8. All entries get emailed to me at
jcoreycon...@aol.com.
>
> 9. Votes will be accepted for 3 days after each round. Winners will be posted, and those moving on will have another 3 days to submit an entry.
>
> That should be enough rules to get us started. Comments? Suggestions?
I promised comments and suggestions; take em or leave em, you may have
already thought of each and have good reasons for ruling it out.
1. I like the new entry proviso, as the idea is to encourage people to
write. I'd prefer that the same piece be used throughout (though the
poet has the option of revising between rounds), as this should be
about poems, not poets.
2. Firm deadlines are a good thing. In theory these are to happen
monthly, so if someone misses one, there's always next month's.
3. I'm a firm believe in blind review. Too much of the "critique" that
we used to get here was based on the poet's name, not the poem.
4. Maximum length is a good idea. Do you want a minimum? Is a one-
letter "poem, like
<quote>
eyeyes
</q>
eligible?
5. I'm not a big fan of the elimination rounds: what happens if
there's only 3 poems submitted? Or any odd number, for that matter?
Also, there's the paradox of democracy, that preferences can be skewed
by the order the alternatives are presented in: some people may get
the idea their poems are being dealt with by being paired with the
strongest poems, while others are getting a free ride by being paired
with the weaker. My own preference would be a vote among all of them,
with a runoff between the top two. But if you think this will work ...
6. Good rule. No comments needed.
7. OK. You can't exclude them, but you can exclude their votes.
Judging from what I've been reading, I'd expect to see voting for the
worst poems, just to discredit the contest; and this is a good way to
handle that.
8. Yes. Making the contest is the first chance readers get to see the
poems, give a clear incentive to read the thread. Some people might
worry about their poems being ripped off, but there are other places
to post them to prove prior authorship; and if anyone has concerns
they can email me about that.
9. So that's: 2 days for first entries; 3 days for voting; 3 days
until the next round; another 3 days for voting on it. Assuming one
day in between each part just for you to post things, that's half the
month taken up already with only two rounds. I hope this doesn't
become too unwieldy.