Join the Neopoet online poetry workshop and community to improve as a writer, meet fellow poets, and showcase your work. Sign up, submit your poetry, and get started.
My removed comments from the forum, and if you didn't like them there, you won't here, not looking for feed back. Thanks.
Realy. No one is expressing
Realy. No one is expressing their opinion.
Fine, let me be the first. Hundreds of years ago my ancestors fought for the right to be a US citizen which means that you will be protected from persecution even if you have a differant view. And we were bestowed rights meant to assure this protection.
The Privacy of the Vote and freedom of the press was held at absolute. Now we are a watered down society and victims of our own selfish vanity’s. And continouisly surrender our values and rights in the name of socialist fairness.
How absurd the the first Democraticly ran Poetry Community not value their rights to privacy, ESPEACIALY as being writers and poets. This may not be the government, but it’s getting fairly slack in the Democracy area as well.
We have let the rare negative dictate the whole community and it’s values as well as privacy. I don’t have a problem telling you how I voted, or why I voted as I did. I was against it. And for the life of me I could not imagine why 40 + people who voted for it truely stopped to think of it beyond their own personal view.
In the name of “Fairness” we can justify the mockery of a Democracy? I have read the definition of political privacy have you?
Political privacy has been a concern since voting systems emerged in ancient times. The secret ballot is the simplest and most widespread measure to ensure that political views are not known to anyone other than the voter – it is nearly universal in modern democracy, and considered a basic right of citizenship. Even where other rights of privacy do not exist, this type of privacy very often does.
Are we here to get the spotlight. Is the vote that important to us. Is sacrificing our privacy worth making poets feel vindicated. Poets love to defend themselves. I know. But to have a target is trouble. People are entitled to an opinion, and yet still not share it.
Might as well toss the 2 an 1’s out and get used to hardly seeing 3’s. And if someone does it will open the floor for a debate maybe even an argument or total chaos. What if you think it deserves a 1,2, or 3, but others are just ready to accuse you of voting down to favor someone else, when all along you realy thought it sucked and didn’t make sense or flow. Aren’t we allowed. The stars are there so why is it so surprising people occasionly give poor scores. It is peoples right to us their vote how they see fit.
Making poets feel like it’s all “Fair” would not be an easy task. And people then would argue on stars not the quality of the poem. My state a few years back changed the voting system. We were only allowed to vote for one party or the other, why, because they felt that voters who left their political party lines, encluding their own party’s members were manipulating the vote and it had a potential of being unfair. But I personaly vote from both party’s and was extremly irrated, as the rest of my state, so they have repealed the voting rule.
I just can’t be supportive of this change, or understand why it was so important to change for 40+ poets, and only 9 odd against wanting to maintain privacy. To me THAT sounds like a rigged vote. Not in all of history has the demacratic or republican view been as differing or as far seperated and low as 20%, {basely rough percetage of people voted against the change 20%}
it’s the middle ground, the comprimise that seperates us all usualy is fairly close to 50/50 spilt, so the balance of the demacracy is maintained. This Democracy is in trouble if you ask me. Might as well turn it in to a Monarchy with us all bowing to the most popular and influential poets.
As for me I will change little, but I can no longer vote with in a system that can’t value it rights. I will continue to comment, but the vote is now fairly unimportant to me. I made spotlight this last week. I still had the majority of votes at 100 after 3 days, yet my poem was removed from the spotlight. I did not get offended, I assumed it was time to move on. Their should be time limits anyways, I had finished working on it, it had ran it coarse.
But my point being it seems, that maybe at least some of the supposed down voting has a more reasonable explanation. Maybe their is more to consider, that happens to also be what it says on the page that displays and update poems in the running for spotlight. May be we are wrongly blamimg the sorce of some spotlight removals, although not all circumstance are likely to be wrong I admit.
I suggest we have a private vote, that can not be changed except to add stars. It would stop people from editing their votes later to achieve a required results. And still leave room for adding stars for improvement. While maintaining the basic privacy of the vote. Or if it can obviously be shown that you where “Legitimitly downvoted” Then the site authority can open in investigation.
The bigger this site gets the more likely we will need rule enforcers.
Benjamin Franklin said that “those who give up a little liberty to gain a little security, deserve neither.” Political liberties being to a degree dependent on basic rights of political privacy and expression of views without retribution, this could be applied to modern contexts to argue strongly against such measures as Total Information Awareness. Knowing the political views of the citizen and what s/he has done to oppose the state and its law enforcement, how can an administration or police officer actually behave in a neutral way?
Even though this is a Poetry workshop, the fundementals of Demacravy apply. These views are relavent to Neopoet politics and voting, it’s should apply to all voting systems, espeacialy one that claims Demacratic origins.
This is not intended to offend anyone who voted for the change, but I can’t help to completly disagree.
Now what do you think?
Are we here to get the spotlight?
Is the vote realy so important to us?
Is sacrificing our privacy worth making poets feel vindicated?
Poets love to defend themselves.
I know.
But to have a target is trouble.
People are entitled to an opinion, and yet still not share it. And yet they do not lose their right to vote. Privacy avoids http://reference.aol.com/dictionary?dword= persecution.
Julie,
Well Nina, I can respect you
Well Nina, I can respect you not wanting to discuss privacy and Democracy in general. But I felt I made the case quite specific outlining the importance to the privacy of a vote in a democratic community. And the forum opener asked for honest opinions of the new system. That in it self opens for the arguement to be restated. This is about the “privacy of our vote”, one of the “fundemental’s of Democracy”. The end result of the current system will have to lead to some one be persecuted for expressing their sincere opinion. THIS IS CALLED PERSECUTION. And the main reason most democracy value the private ballot.
I am glad you and others have clear Ideas how to leave your vote, I do to. But if we were not supposed to give 1 or 2, then why would we have them. Isn’t it sort of silly to have them if we don’t feel we can use them. I also refrain from low votes, at least before I stopped voting. It’s the principal of the whole matter. And showing how ridiculous we are making the spotlight.
And your point of saying you don’t care about the vote as long as they tell you why they voted that way, well I understand you may have a differant view of political privacy and the fundementals of a democracy, we are not all US citizens, so you are entitled. But just you claiming you don’t care, as long as they explain themselves, is yet again my point. We are all allowed to have opinions, they may differ, but they will be protected one and all. Some have opinions they don’t wish to explain, and honestly should not have to, It’s there perogitive do use there vote as they see fit. And be protected from persecution if they refuse to explain their reasons.
Your are right Nina, we are here to improve our poetry, and in that spirit harsh critism should be expected and occasionaly given in a poetry workshop. We help no one by water down our opinion and votes to please the masses. The poet seeking true advice on a earnest peice are going to be the one’s to suffer. Privacy and Democracy are not side subject’s, they ARE the subject. And how we choose to vote should honor Neopoet and the Democracy it is based on, and the fundemental principal of privacy. Not endulge people vanity’s concerning the spot light.
As FOR A SUGGESTION, I did state a easy solution and comprimise. Keep the vote private, and be able to add stars, but no longer able to remove stars. It would keep it honest and still let people add stars for improvement. WHILE MAINTAINING THE FUNDEMENTAL CORE OF A DEMOCRACY, THE SANCTITY OF THE SECREAT BALLOT.
I would also like to state that I am not trying to stick up for downvoter’s, I am only try to protect my community voting rights and privacy. It just so happens that leaves me opposing the current voting change’s.
Meant with tons of respect, plus concern for our community.
Julie
If you truely believe
If you truely believe something you never apoligize for it Nina.
I am quite adult enough to have a respectable discussion with you and not feel that you are stepping on my toes. I have respect for your views, I just think you have skimmed some of my points, and completly ignored others,
1. Like the PURPOSE of voting privacy to avoid PERSECUTION for views that are not always shared. That is the HARM POSSIBLE, expirencing Persecution for your vote, for a mirad of differant reasons. While we descend in to a popularity contest.
2. Not only the arthur, but all of their “friends” now feel free to have an opinion on the vote one chooses to cast, good or bad for what ever matter.
3. Distracts from the poetry focusing on the voting and adding fuel to peoples desire to get to the spotlight, as Richard pointed out. Which we all agree is not our purpose to be here.
As for not seeing the coralation between a Democracy or political privacy on a Democraticaly ran site that has a rating system designed as a vote, is slightly concerning. It’s hard to see how you don’t think that are community should not honor the pricipals the site was based on. Or that you might not know the true intentions for a secret ballots. And the legitmate fears associated with Persecution. That you can’t clearly see how it opens the door for even worse abuse of the system then we already have. Or what I am meaning when I refer to voter privacy. Or that how that applys to this community. Because it all does apply.
You would like it to be as simple as everyone explaining why they had an opinion or a vote. But it isn’t. So if it is Yours or my government holding a vote, they can’t respond if we vote against them, or put us all on some political watch list. Our privacy protects us from this and dozens of other forms of persecution. And we should be entitled to that protection
NOW OF COARSE we expect people to give an honest answer and not abuse the voting system, but if somebody wants to there is more than one way. So why should we just accept giving up our privacy, as an American and I would assume Germans feel similar, it’s hard to give up any rights that we feel entitled to. And being part of a Democraticaly ran community I feel like trying to maintain my voting privacy in the name of maintaining and sticking up for the rights I beleive I am fundemental entitled to as a member of a Democratic community.
And if low votes are your reason and justification, not the specific abuse of later downgrading a previous vote to influence the current spotlight, then I support your posistion even less. But still with respect. Casting a low vote is a personal peragutive, but changing it is underhanded. And I do believe that most people are more concerned with changed votes, hence the name Downvote’s, not whether someone is giving a low vote. We really should expect it, and not feel a 2 or 1 is the end of the world, unless the purpose is to reach spotlight. And I will say it again, I don’t think that is what any of us are here for.
I am Honored to be having this coversation with you Nina,
Julie
Well why you singled me out for your specific points I don’t get Weird Elf, but that’s OK. I more concerned with privacy rights, and political privacy in general that apply to ALL voting systems in general, while our lovely Nina Brought in the points of it being more of a grading system, and there is several people that agree with both of us.
As for your point of view about University’s and Grades, that is silly. If I went to collage I would have access to my grades and critique, but you wouldn’t.
But picking me out because I have the most opinionated opinion, I am happy to see the Democratic process in work. We are all entitled to our opinion.
And I am very glad you are honest and not afraid of excersing the right to give an honest evaluation of a poem and giving 1, and 2’s, but even 3 of the other above comments people say they only very rarely are given out. They feel it is to harsh.
And you might have missed up above that I stated 1, and 2’s are vital number’s and people should feel free to use them, an under the new system more people will hesitate to give an honest vote, and be more likely to water down the comment and feedback, and make people feel obligated to match their generous comment’s to the vote they felt obligated to give. And if I do decide to vote again I will implent 1 and 2’s in my voting as well, when nessesary.
When our community needs the exact opposite, more constructive criticism and free environment to feel comfortable voting our true opinions, instead of diving in to a Social biganza with people sucking up to the people who vote, the more the merry.
No buddy likes to think some one else thought their work was of poor quality, and after bettering our poetry our next motivation for being here is making poet friends. No buddy likes doggin on their friends. Especially with a public vote. Which is why the voting system is better left secret, then those same friends are given the opportunity to vote their belief, instead of just knock ‘in on their friends work.
And if we could trust everyone to be honest and rate accountably Weird Elf, then I doubt the issue would even be an issue at all. their is people out their, yes even on our wonderful site, who are not honest, sincere, or level. Fact, a fact that sucks, but fact non the less.
As an American, which means nothing really here I know, I have very strong opinions on removing rights I already have, especially one’s associate privacy and voting systems,ESPECIALY as a writer. And especially right now as they try to impose more restrictions and tax’s.
Now that does not mean Neopoet has to be like US politic’s, God I certainly hope we don’t resemble that at all. But just implementing a member ran community with a voting system is in it self a Democracy, and bestowed us with user rights, which I choose to fight to maintain, whether anyone see’s the correlation or my point is up to them.
But considering how little opposition there was to implementing the new voting system as a trial, I figured if no one else would argue the opposing side, then I will oblige. Every position should have representation, and every member the freedom to make there own choices.
As for the very thought provoking conversations with our teachers above. I see the argument, I digested the notion if I could just think of it like a grading system.
And can not see a grading system being what we need, for the same reason Nina pointed out, we have no way to normalize the grading process. And as Arrow pointed out everyone rates differently. And a couple other good points about grading systems and student motivations.
BUT I HAVE A NEW CONCERN PEOPLE.
As I surfed last night I noticed something, that I hope everyone who reads this will start looking for it. I found it a little perturbing and although I have not confirmed anything it’s only my opinion, it is concerning.
HAVE YOU ALL NOTICED THAT PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO ONLY RESPOND TO PEOPLE WHO LEFT VOTES. While people’s other comments, with sensible critique are being ignored.
Not everyone choose’s to respond to everyone who comments on there poems, sometimes no need, other times no point, to each their own. But the public voting system has now let people know WHO is voting for them, so they are the one’s to get their return comments and in return also go vote for them.
Now after thinking this over, I was distressed. Many people choose not to vote, but when I give critique I take considerable amount of time to go over and figure out the process just to be able to give constructive feedback, but now that seems to be is less important then the “I loved it” reviews. Not in all cases of coarse.
So we have now effectively created the monster we were out to destroy the vanity driven need for the spotlight and the vote. We all Know who votes now, so now we know who to buddy up to. It’s not based on the best critique, it’s a popularity contest. A political campaign to, go smooozze the voters and forget the comment and the quality feedback.
So unless we are going to turn this in to a grading system that is private only to the Author, it is still a 5 star rating system that is voted on and averaged out.
So now some suggestions to maintain privacy, get constructive feed back a avoid popularity contest’s, there is a few. I love options.
First I suggest keeping the star rating private, or returning it private after the trial. But not being able to REMOVE stars, only add for improvement. Which eliminate down voting to manipulate the system.
Making specific nominations for spotlight, losing the 5 stars altogether.
Taking this Idea further, we could eliminate the spotlight as we know it. Use the popularity tracker to decide poems to focus on, whether the poem was left comments and vote’s, or not.
As for the quality of our feedback, we are all responsible to make this community work, as a constructive poetry workshop environment. What ever system we end up choosing.
Julie
Clarification,and since we
Clarification,and since we have never conversed before Andrew, let me say “HI!”
I mean keep the current system, but not beable to latter change the vote to less stars, only being able to add stars for improvement.
Which would also incourge people to only vote 5 stars unless it is a powerfully moving piece that need no further correction. And make one’s and two’s relavent again with out insulting our poet buddy’s. But prevent the vote changing and removing of stars later, which is the manipulater that started this issue. While maintaining the core of principals of Democracy and voting, the privacy of the vote.
With the main goal to protect against persecution, and I believe this forum is a PERFECT example on how someone can show persecution against someone else for expressing an opinion that they don’t share. What ever the “Leangth” of the opinion they might have and are willing to take the time to type out and express.
Thanks for reading my suggestions, I don’t beleive some other’s were able to make it that far. I do enjoy writing at “leangth” don’t I. hehe
Julie
Yet in all of my writing, all the excess. I can still manage to be open minded and respectful. Were as in a few short sentances proved you are close minded, opinionated and disrespectful. Funny, maybe it’s because I put alot of thought in to these conversation and remember that my opinion does not have to be shared with everyone to still show respect, no matter the extent of my words.
And you don’t have to read it I if you don’t like it, just don’t knock me and act like you even actualy read it all in the first place. It is a gift to know how to express your opinion. And I choose to excercise it at leangth. And some people do like to read it, and those who don’t, don’t have to. I am sorry you have a problem with people having a different view and caring enough to lay it all out in detail, but I suggest getting over it. I am not likely to get less opinionated or wordy. But I will always be respectful.
Julie
Thank you for becoming a
Thank you for becoming a great example of persecution and proving ALL of my points and how this is relavent to Neopoet.
I read the last forum months ago and and right before I composed my comments here. And I quote you Weird elf,
“Isn’t real democracy standing up and being seen for what we believe?” from your comments on the first page.
So being short sighted, attacking, dismissive, and disrespectful is a rant to me. And sence you were the Author of the last forum on the subject, we already know you have an opinion.
let’s CHOOSE to be respectful for what ever opinions other’s may have and what ever “leangth” they choose to have them.
Julie
Aaahhh, but the editor
Aaahhh, but the editor doesn’t publish your name and address you gave to them, to protect you, or them, from persecution for expressing the paticular views.
And Anonamous editorals are printed to. In fact I wrote a letter to the Editor of my local, this week. But I WANTED to publicly state my opinion. As I have here. Not every body feel’s comfortable publicly stating THEIR opinion. Yet they are still entitled to their opinion, and vote/rating for that matter. WONDERFUL DEMOCRACY AT WORK. I love this.
Julie
Even when short and consise
Even when short and consise you dismiss them. Closeminded. By the way, I thrive on argument. As well as acceppt constructive input of all “leangths”.
Julie
Nina I could agree with you,
Nina I could agree with you,
But lacking the 1,2,or 3 star nomination process. That would be easy to manipulate, and we then see yet again only the most “Popular” poets and their work, not just the best work. But a simple nominate for yes or no would work. And eliminate tons of politics that some like to claim don’t exist, but come on now folks, we all know it does. But even a only a yes or no vote will still subject the spotlight to poets who have more readers. Not the best piece.
But it would be closer to the goal, then our comments and constructive critism would come from each other as friends, not popular or vote centered ally’s. We wouldn’t know if our friends nominated or not.
We would lose a few comment’s from people who only comment on others work to get comments and votes in return, but the honesty of it all would be free to reign!
BUT I still think I like it the way it was, and would just like to see the inability to lessen stars, while maintaining the choice to add them for improvement.
Then we still motivate each other to get out and read and leave an opinion, with only the best work, most worked upon and highest efforts and quality having a chance to reach spot light. The reward of reaching it is quite…rewarding. But it would never happen if your not involved enough get there. I beleive we could all agree, that you usualy have to put alot of work in to any poem that reach’s it.
Was that a little shorter of a point. Not near as juicy as a political fight though.
Julie
But if people could be trusted to show that respect and honesty, we wouldn’t even be having this issue Kelsey. And I am very glad you felt that you could express your opinion. And are far far from a stupid kid, kiddo.
Your right the spotlight is an ego boost that too many poets strive and manipulate for. I do not care for the spotlight, although can apreaciate the honor when it is given, its set up currently as a popularity contest.
But we do need a way to spotlight quality work and the current star system does that. We just need to eliminate downvoting to manipulate spotlight results. The the rating/voting system retains it’s honesty and privacy to protect from popularity and privacy issues.
Although I would love to see a place were every one was honest enough the whole issue was a mute point. But that just not the way most large groups of people can work. There will always be a bad apple downvoting and insulting some poet or other and driving the vain need of “Knowing” who could dare, as well as manipulate our honored rating system.
Keep the old system, eliminate the removal of stars and keep the ability to add them. AND VOTE AND COMMENT YOUR MIND! Respectfully!
Julie
I think you are right
I think you are right Proprietess. The new system is not going to produce the results we seek. And eliminating the competition of the spotlight should be the focus.
A rotating top ten is still a popularity contest that can be manipulated, but any voting/rating system is, nor will it ever be absolutely fair. So I could agree with your Idea over the current trial set up, but I still feel removing the the ability to remove stars would prevent later down voting and manipulation of the system. While maintaining the drive to go comment and rate other work. With out fear of persecution or watered down comments and votes.
I am glad you could join the conversation and you and Nina, as well as many other’s have very valid points and opinions, that I hope everyone reads.
Julie,
I have been rolling around a NEW Idea folks.
Yes! hear here! We comment only because we are Care! Or why would we bother.
And I did catch your previous mention of what you believe is the actual problem with down voting Nina, and I respect your view, but have to say that your issue is not the same as mine. I believe people should feel free to leave 1 and 2’s on any poem as a their prerogative to use their 1 vote as they see fit.
I believe the problem later lie’s with CHANGING the vote to manipulate the spotlight results. That’s where it get’s dishonest and underhanded, I believe 1 and 2’s should not be looked at like a poetic death sentence.
SO A WAY TO SOLVE THAT ISSUE I HAVE been cookin’ up! But like the rest it will have it’s negative’s, starting with being a whole new Idea. But also some great positive’s.
So high lightning my new Idea and pro’s and con’s of it. I came up with less con’s and think I should spit it out for all to consider. It is a NEW idea, and not a re hatched one.
So we want quality feed back, right, we have requests on our submission page, and Generally those request reflect the actual information we all really value.
So what if we make it more like a predictable grading system, with the best grades being the work eligible for Spotlight. What we would mark in the “review request” would determine if we even are putting a piece up for spot light.
Review Request (Intensity):
N/A
Please use care (this is a sensitive subject for me, do not critique harshly)
I appreciate moderate constructive criticism
I want the raw truth, feel free to knock me on my back
Let us know your preferences on how intensely you would like your poem critiqued.
SO if a poet pick’s “N/A” or “use with care”, it will not run for the spotlight, I believe we all agree it’s workshop so if your not liking to be critiqued, it not the point of being here and those poems should not be in the running for Spot light. So comment poster’s who forget to not be harsh, never even get the rating opportunity to possible offend the Author.
But when we choose “I appreciate moderate criticism” or “I want the Raw truth Knock me on my back” we open up the star system to come in to play.
Review Request (Direction):
What did you think of my title?
How was my language use?
What did you think of the rhythm or pattern or pacing?
How does this theme appeal to you?
How was the beginning/ending of the poem?
Is the internal logic consistent?
Please do not critique mechanics. The inconsistencies in style are intentional, or correcting them is not important to me.
Then we ask what you like to be rated on, currently ” 6 ” questions. So we could switch up the question’s so there was 5 questions, like we have 5 stars, if need be, but we could also add a star, or even more questions or stars if we choose.
Then only in the comment preview we would be asked to rate a star for each question. Each star only being it’s own individual star, not a scale rating just a vote for or against whether in our opinion the Author achieved each question.
What did you think of my title? * {* is representing a star}
How was my language use? *
What did you think of the rhythm or pattern or pacing? *
How does this theme appeal to you? *
How was the beginning/ending of the poem? NO {*} NO
Is the internal logic consistent? *
My imaginary grade is now a 5/6 of a 6 star possibility. Obviously only being used as an example of the possible direction we could take.
So we would still give open opinions in the comments and get specific, but it would normalize a grading process, with set questions with simple yes the author achieved the goal, or no the author did not, which we don’t have to say, we just don’t rate equaling No star.
Put’s the exact questions we are all initially asking when we submit a poem for input, on specific direct grading in a yes or no answer, and set’s a standard to grade on. Therefor a fairly level field to “Grade” from.
CHANGES IT FROM A VOTE TO A GRADE. With the best “Grades” making it to spotlight, possibly in a top ten rotation to highlight a wide variety of work and poets.
I do still think we need to maintain privacy and only show people the average of each grade, to prevent suggestive grading by knowing other poets votes. And to prevent singling people out resulting in eventual persecution for some one’s individual opinion and grade. Humans can be easily influenced by their peers, which does not give accurate feed back.
But I think the individual result’s SHOULD be available for the Author. Which give’s us the ability of knowing where we need to improve our poetry. So like a report card, specific and available, but not public.
SO WHAT DO THINK OF THAT NOTION FOLKS, did I rework the whole situation and revive it with meaning, or is it a plain horrible Idea, no offense will be taking either way. As long as it is not doing any negative down talking, I want to hear what you ALL think.
One final note, I still personally like the same old system, only with no ability to later remove stars, while still being able to add them for improvement.
But I also am a creature used to compromise, and have the best interest of the community as a whole when I argue and write so much. I think the current/old system gives us motivation to get out and read, comment, and rate. To be involved, and be able to except all levels of critique. Which in it self, is a lesson of character.
As well as maintaining a private atmosphere that encourage’s honesty, not a watered down popularity contest meant to appease people vanity’s and enable them to base response’s out of comment content and not voting status. Or as in the above proposal of a Grading status, which could still obviously be manipulated.
But I believe the new idea above would at least give people more specific feed back to work from, answering specific question no matter the graders desire to comment. There is flaw in every option.
julie
Thanks for the recap Nina, I sure we all needed it. I alone have tossed out ton’s of Ideas, admittedly I haven’t run accross any that lack flaws, but you did forget my favorite and personal pick for what I would like to see happen.
9. Keep the old private star system, but remove the ability to remove stars, only add for improvements on the poem.
It offers the least amount of change and specificly targets the down voters trying to manipulate the spotlight. The Bad apple’s that started the problem.
As well as maintaining a private atmosphere that safe guards against any forms of persecution and encourage’s honesty, not a watered down popularity contest meant to appease people vanity’s and enable them to base response’s out of comment content and not voting status.
Then I like #4, #1, 3#, #6, 7#, 8# and 2# in that order. I not so sure about #5.
But in my opinion, ALL of those suggestions are better than the current trial.
And there has been several comments on how the current trial is going and how people think it is working and I hope we are all reading how other’s feel about the issue.
I have stated my feeling and why I feel it is not working, if anyone wants me to clarify it again. Let me know.{hehe}
In Recap of my view, it is to protect against even the tiny possibility of people feeling persecuted and Neopoet being based on a Democratic priciples, so should stick close to the fundementals of a Democracy, which almost universely protect the secreat ballot. And in my opinion has already effected the quality of the voting. As well as noticing people are already giving extra attention to the people they “know” vote. While ignoring well thought out critiqes from people who don’t.
And the current trial really does not prevent down voting or help with the competition of poets trying to reach the spot light.
Julie
D.D.
By the way guys, since we are already in to a trial of a system I don’t like, I feel the extra preasure to try to state my side, because I am already in the minority. So I can find a little understanding for people not appreaciating the leagnth of my comments, but since my side is not well represented, I have to been even more out spoken to try and protect the rights I already have as part of this community, in favor of just surrendering them for a system that add’s no improvement or solve’s any issue’s.
But what ever the results end up being, I will respect the choice the community make’s as a whole, in the worst I won’t vote and will stick to my comments and at the best, maybe we will find a soulution we can all like and agree upon.
HERE’S TO HOPIN’, GO NEOPOET!! Thank you to every one who has been patient with me, it’s not always the easest task. Life with out passion is boring.
D.D.
Realy. No one is expressing their opinion.
Fine, let me be the first. Hundreds of years ago my ancestors fought for the right to be a US citizen which means that you will be protected from persecution even if you have a differant view. And we were bestowed rights meant to assure this protection.
The Privacy of the Vote and freedom of the press was held at absolute. Now we are a watered down society and victims of our own selfish vanity’s. And continouisly surrender our values and rights in the name of socialist fairness.
How absurd the the first Democraticly ran Poetry Community not value their rights to privacy, ESPEACIALY as being writers and poets. This may not be the government, but it’s getting fairly slack in the Democracy area as well.
We have let the rare negative dictate the whole community and it’s values as well as privacy. I don’t have a problem telling you how I voted, or why I voted as I did. I was against it. And for the life of me I could not imagine why 40 + people who voted for it truely stopped to think of it beyond their own personal view.
In the name of “Fairness” we can justify the mockery of a Democracy? I have read the definition of political privacy have you?
Political privacy has been a concern since voting systems emerged in ancient times. The secret ballot is the simplest and most widespread measure to ensure that political views are not known to anyone other than the voter – it is nearly universal in modern democracy, and considered a basic right of citizenship. Even where other rights of privacy do not exist, this type of privacy very often does.
Are we here to get the spotlight. Is the vote that important to us. Is sacrificing our privacy worth making poets feel vindicated. Poets love to defend themselves. I know. But to have a target is trouble. People are entitled to an opinion, and yet still not share it.
Might as well toss the 2 an 1’s out and get used to hardly seeing 3’s. And if someone does it will open the floor for a debate maybe even an argument or total chaos. What if you think it deserves a 1,2, or 3, but others are just ready to accuse you of voting down to favor someone else, when all along you realy thought it sucked and didn’t make sense or flow. Aren’t we allowed. The stars are there so why is it so surprising people occasionly give poor scores. It is peoples right to us their vote how they see fit.
Making poets feel like it’s all “Fair” would not be an easy task. And people then would argue on stars not the quality of the poem. My state a few years back changed the voting system. We were only allowed to vote for one party or the other, why, because they felt that voters who left their political party lines, encluding their own party’s members were manipulating the vote and it had a potential of being unfair. But I personaly vote from both party’s and was extremly irrated, as the rest of my state, so they have repealed the voting rule.
I just can’t be supportive of this change, or understand why it was so important to change for 40+ poets, and only 9 odd against wanting to maintain privacy. To me THAT sounds like a rigged vote. Not in all of history has the demacratic or republican view been as differing or as far seperated and low as 20%, {basely rough percetage of people voted against the change 20%}
it’s the middle ground, the comprimise that seperates us all usualy is fairly close to 50/50 spilt, so the balance of the demacracy is maintained. This Democracy is in trouble if you ask me. Might as well turn it in to a Monarchy with us all bowing to the most popular and influential poets.
As for me I will change little, but I can no longer vote with in a system that can’t value it rights. I will continue to comment, but the vote is now fairly unimportant to me. I made spotlight this last week. I still had the majority of votes at 100 after 3 days, yet my poem was removed from the spotlight. I did not get offended, I assumed it was time to move on. Their should be time limits anyways, I had finished working on it, it had ran it coarse.
But my point being it seems, that maybe at least some of the supposed down voting has a more reasonable explanation. Maybe their is more to consider, that happens to also be what it says on the page that displays and update poems in the running for spotlight. May be we are wrongly blamimg the sorce of some spotlight removals, although not all circumstance are likely to be wrong I admit.
I suggest we have a private vote, that can not be changed except to add stars. It would stop people from editing their votes later to achieve a required results. And still leave room for adding stars for improvement. While maintaining the basic privacy of the vote. Or if it can obviously be shown that you where “Legitimitly downvoted” Then the site authority can open in investigation.
The bigger this site gets the more likely we will need rule enforcers.
Benjamin Franklin said that “those who give up a little liberty to gain a little security, deserve neither.” Political liberties being to a degree dependent on basic rights of political privacy and expression of views without retribution, this could be applied to modern contexts to argue strongly against such measures as Total Information Awareness. Knowing the political views of the citizen and what s/he has done to oppose the state and its law enforcement, how can an administration or police officer actually behave in a neutral way?
Even though this is a Poetry workshop, the fundementals of Demacravy apply. These views are relavent to Neopoet politics and voting, it’s should apply to all voting systems, espeacialy one that claims Demacratic origins.
This is not intended to offend anyone who voted for the change, but I can’t help to completly disagree.
Now what do you think?
Are we here to get the spotlight?
Is the vote realy so important to us?
Is sacrificing our privacy worth making poets feel vindicated?
Poets love to defend themselves.
I know.
But to have a target is trouble.
People are entitled to an opinion, and yet still not share it. And yet they do not lose their right to vote. Privacy avoids http://reference.aol.com/dictionary?dword= persecution.
Julie,
Well Nina, I can respect you
Well Nina, I can respect you not wanting to discuss privacy and Democracy in general. But I felt I made the case quite specific outlining the importance to the privacy of a vote in a democratic community. And the forum opener asked for honest opinions of the new system. That in it self opens for the arguement to be restated. This is about the “privacy of our vote”, one of the “fundemental’s of Democracy”. The end result of the current system will have to lead to some one be persecuted for expressing their sincere opinion. THIS IS CALLED PERSECUTION. And the main reason most democracy value the private ballot.
I am glad you and others have clear Ideas how to leave your vote, I do to. But if we were not supposed to give 1 or 2, then why would we have them. Isn’t it sort of silly to have them if we don’t feel we can use them. I also refrain from low votes, at least before I stopped voting. It’s the principal of the whole matter. And showing how ridiculous we are making the spotlight.
And your point of saying you don’t care about the vote as long as they tell you why they voted that way, well I understand you may have a differant view of political privacy and the fundementals of a democracy, we are not all US citizens, so you are entitled. But just you claiming you don’t care, as long as they explain themselves, is yet again my point. We are all allowed to have opinions, they may differ, but they will be protected one and all. Some have opinions they don’t wish to explain, and honestly should not have to, It’s there perogitive do use there vote as they see fit. And be protected from persecution if they refuse to explain their reasons.
Your are right Nina, we are here to improve our poetry, and in that spirit harsh critism should be expected and occasionaly given in a poetry workshop. We help no one by water down our opinion and votes to please the masses. The poet seeking true advice on a earnest peice are going to be the one’s to suffer. Privacy and Democracy are not side subject’s, they ARE the subject. And how we choose to vote should honor Neopoet and the Democracy it is based on, and the fundemental principal of privacy. Not endulge people vanity’s concerning the spot light.
As FOR A SUGGESTION, I did state a easy solution and comprimise. Keep the vote private, and be able to add stars, but no longer able to remove stars. It would keep it honest and still let people add stars for improvement. WHILE MAINTAINING THE FUNDEMENTAL CORE OF A DEMOCRACY, THE SANCTITY OF THE SECREAT BALLOT.
I would also like to state that I am not trying to stick up for downvoter’s, I am only try to protect my community voting rights and privacy. It just so happens that leaves me opposing the current voting change’s.
Meant with tons of respect, plus concern for our community.
Julie
If you truely believe
If you truely believe something you never apoligize for it Nina.
I am quite adult enough to have a respectable discussion with you and not feel that you are stepping on my toes. I have respect for your views, I just think you have skimmed some of my points, and completly ignored others,
1. Like the PURPOSE of voting privacy to avoid PERSECUTION for views that are not always shared. That is the HARM POSSIBLE, expirencing Persecution for your vote, for a mirad of differant reasons. While we descend in to a popularity contest.
2. Not only the arthur, but all of their “friends” now feel free to have an opinion on the vote one chooses to cast, good or bad for what ever matter.
3. Distracts from the poetry focusing on the voting and adding fuel to peoples desire to get to the spotlight, as Richard pointed out. Which we all agree is not our purpose to be here.
As for not seeing the coralation between a Democracy or political privacy on a Democraticaly ran site that has a rating system designed as a vote, is slightly concerning. It’s hard to see how you don’t think that are community should not honor the pricipals the site was based on. Or that you might not know the true intentions for a secret ballots. And the legitmate fears associated with Persecution. That you can’t clearly see how it opens the door for even worse abuse of the system then we already have. Or what I am meaning when I refer to voter privacy. Or that how that applys to this community. Because it all does apply.
You would like it to be as simple as everyone explaining why they had an opinion or a vote. But it isn’t. So if it is Yours or my government holding a vote, they can’t respond if we vote against them, or put us all on some political watch list. Our privacy protects us from this and dozens of other forms of persecution. And we should be entitled to that protection
NOW OF COARSE we expect people to give an honest answer and not abuse the voting system, but if somebody wants to there is more than one way. So why should we just accept giving up our privacy, as an American and I would assume Germans feel similar, it’s hard to give up any rights that we feel entitled to. And being part of a Democraticaly ran community I feel like trying to maintain my voting privacy in the name of maintaining and sticking up for the rights I beleive I am fundemental entitled to as a member of a Democratic community.
And if low votes are your reason and justification, not the specific abuse of later downgrading a previous vote to influence the current spotlight, then I support your posistion even less. But still with respect. Casting a low vote is a personal peragutive, but changing it is underhanded. And I do believe that most people are more concerned with changed votes, hence the name Downvote’s, not whether someone is giving a low vote. We really should expect it, and not feel a 2 or 1 is the end of the world, unless the purpose is to reach spotlight. And I will say it again, I don’t think that is what any of us are here for.
I am Honored to be having this coversation with you Nina,
Julie
Well why you singled me out for your specific points I don’t get Weird Elf, but that’s OK. I more concerned with privacy rights, and political privacy in general that apply to ALL voting systems in general, while our lovely Nina Brought in the points of it being more of a grading system, and there is several people that agree with both of us.
As for your point of view about University’s and Grades, that is silly. If I went to collage I would have access to my grades and critique, but you wouldn’t.
But picking me out because I have the most opinionated opinion, I am happy to see the Democratic process in work. We are all entitled to our opinion.
And I am very glad you are honest and not afraid of excersing the right to give an honest evaluation of a poem and giving 1, and 2’s, but even 3 of the other above comments people say they only very rarely are given out. They feel it is to harsh.
And you might have missed up above that I stated 1, and 2’s are vital number’s and people should feel free to use them, an under the new system more people will hesitate to give an honest vote, and be more likely to water down the comment and feedback, and make people feel obligated to match their generous comment’s to the vote they felt obligated to give. And if I do decide to vote again I will implent 1 and 2’s in my voting as well, when nessesary.
When our community needs the exact opposite, more constructive criticism and free environment to feel comfortable voting our true opinions, instead of diving in to a Social biganza with people sucking up to the people who vote, the more the merry.
No buddy likes to think some one else thought their work was of poor quality, and after bettering our poetry our next motivation for being here is making poet friends. No buddy likes doggin on their friends. Especially with a public vote. Which is why the voting system is better left secret, then those same friends are given the opportunity to vote their belief, instead of just knock ‘in on their friends work.
And if we could trust everyone to be honest and rate accountably Weird Elf, then I doubt the issue would even be an issue at all. their is people out their, yes even on our wonderful site, who are not honest, sincere, or level. Fact, a fact that sucks, but fact non the less.
As an American, which means nothing really here I know, I have very strong opinions on removing rights I already have, especially one’s associate privacy and voting systems,ESPECIALY as a writer. And especially right now as they try to impose more restrictions and tax’s.
Now that does not mean Neopoet has to be like US politic’s, God I certainly hope we don’t resemble that at all. But just implementing a member ran community with a voting system is in it self a Democracy, and bestowed us with user rights, which I choose to fight to maintain, whether anyone see’s the correlation or my point is up to them.
But considering how little opposition there was to implementing the new voting system as a trial, I figured if no one else would argue the opposing side, then I will oblige. Every position should have representation, and every member the freedom to make there own choices.
As for the very thought provoking conversations with our teachers above. I see the argument, I digested the notion if I could just think of it like a grading system.
And can not see a grading system being what we need, for the same reason Nina pointed out, we have no way to normalize the grading process. And as Arrow pointed out everyone rates differently. And a couple other good points about grading systems and student motivations.
BUT I HAVE A NEW CONCERN PEOPLE.
As I surfed last night I noticed something, that I hope everyone who reads this will start looking for it. I found it a little perturbing and although I have not confirmed anything it’s only my opinion, it is concerning.
HAVE YOU ALL NOTICED THAT PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO ONLY RESPOND TO PEOPLE WHO LEFT VOTES. While people’s other comments, with sensible critique are being ignored.
Not everyone choose’s to respond to everyone who comments on there poems, sometimes no need, other times no point, to each their own. But the public voting system has now let people know WHO is voting for them, so they are the one’s to get their return comments and in return also go vote for them.
Now after thinking this over, I was distressed. Many people choose not to vote, but when I give critique I take considerable amount of time to go over and figure out the process just to be able to give constructive feedback, but now that seems to be is less important then the “I loved it” reviews. Not in all cases of coarse.
So we have now effectively created the monster we were out to destroy the vanity driven need for the spotlight and the vote. We all Know who votes now, so now we know who to buddy up to. It’s not based on the best critique, it’s a popularity contest. A political campaign to, go smooozze the voters and forget the comment and the quality feedback.
So unless we are going to turn this in to a grading system that is private only to the Author, it is still a 5 star rating system that is voted on and averaged out.
So now some suggestions to maintain privacy, get constructive feed back a avoid popularity contest’s, there is a few. I love options.
First I suggest keeping the star rating private, or returning it private after the trial. But not being able to REMOVE stars, only add for improvement. Which eliminate down voting to manipulate the system.
Making specific nominations for spotlight, losing the 5 stars altogether.
Taking this Idea further, we could eliminate the spotlight as we know it. Use the popularity tracker to decide poems to focus on, whether the poem was left comments and vote’s, or not.
As for the quality of our feedback, we are all responsible to make this community work, as a constructive poetry workshop environment. What ever system we end up choosing.
Julie
Clarification,and since we
Clarification,and since we have never conversed before Andrew, let me say “HI!”
I mean keep the current system, but not beable to latter change the vote to less stars, only being able to add stars for improvement.
Which would also incourge people to only vote 5 stars unless it is a powerfully moving piece that need no further correction. And make one’s and two’s relavent again with out insulting our poet buddy’s. But prevent the vote changing and removing of stars later, which is the manipulater that started this issue. While maintaining the core of principals of Democracy and voting, the privacy of the vote.
With the main goal to protect against persecution, and I believe this forum is a PERFECT example on how someone can show persecution against someone else for expressing an opinion that they don’t share. What ever the “Leangth” of the opinion they might have and are willing to take the time to type out and express.
Thanks for reading my suggestions, I don’t beleive some other’s were able to make it that far. I do enjoy writing at “leangth” don’t I. hehe
Julie
Yet in all of my writing, all the excess. I can still manage to be open minded and respectful. Were as in a few short sentances proved you are close minded, opinionated and disrespectful. Funny, maybe it’s because I put alot of thought in to these conversation and remember that my opinion does not have to be shared with everyone to still show respect, no matter the extent of my words.
And you don’t have to read it I if you don’t like it, just don’t knock me and act like you even actualy read it all in the first place. It is a gift to know how to express your opinion. And I choose to excercise it at leangth. And some people do like to read it, and those who don’t, don’t have to. I am sorry you have a problem with people having a different view and caring enough to lay it all out in detail, but I suggest getting over it. I am not likely to get less opinionated or wordy. But I will always be respectful.
Julie
Thank you for becoming a
Thank you for becoming a great example of persecution and proving ALL of my points and how this is relavent to Neopoet.
I read the last forum months ago and and right before I composed my comments here. And I quote you Weird elf,
“Isn’t real democracy standing up and being seen for what we believe?” from your comments on the first page.
So being short sighted, attacking, dismissive, and disrespectful is a rant to me. And sence you were the Author of the last forum on the subject, we already know you have an opinion.
let’s CHOOSE to be respectful for what ever opinions other’s may have and what ever “leangth” they choose to have them.
Julie
Aaahhh, but the editor
Aaahhh, but the editor doesn’t publish your name and address you gave to them, to protect you, or them, from persecution for expressing the paticular views.
And Anonamous editorals are printed to. In fact I wrote a letter to the Editor of my local, this week. But I WANTED to publicly state my opinion. As I have here. Not every body feel’s comfortable publicly stating THEIR opinion. Yet they are still entitled to their opinion, and vote/rating for that matter. WONDERFUL DEMOCRACY AT WORK. I love this.
Julie
Even when short and consise
Even when short and consise you dismiss them. Closeminded. By the way, I thrive on argument. As well as acceppt constructive input of all “leangths”.
Julie
Nina I could agree with you,
Nina I could agree with you,
But lacking the 1,2,or 3 star nomination process. That would be easy to manipulate, and we then see yet again only the most “Popular” poets and their work, not just the best work. But a simple nominate for yes or no would work. And eliminate tons of politics that some like to claim don’t exist, but come on now folks, we all know it does. But even a only a yes or no vote will still subject the spotlight to poets who have more readers. Not the best piece.
But it would be closer to the goal, then our comments and constructive critism would come from each other as friends, not popular or vote centered ally’s. We wouldn’t know if our friends nominated or not.
We would lose a few comment’s from people who only comment on others work to get comments and votes in return, but the honesty of it all would be free to reign!
BUT I still think I like it the way it was, and would just like to see the inability to lessen stars, while maintaining the choice to add them for improvement.
Then we still motivate each other to get out and read and leave an opinion, with only the best work, most worked upon and highest efforts and quality having a chance to reach spot light. The reward of reaching it is quite…rewarding. But it would never happen if your not involved enough get there. I beleive we could all agree, that you usualy have to put alot of work in to any poem that reach’s it.
Was that a little shorter of a point. Not near as juicy as a political fight though.
Julie
But if people could be trusted to show that respect and honesty, we wouldn’t even be having this issue Kelsey. And I am very glad you felt that you could express your opinion. And are far far from a stupid kid, kiddo.
Your right the spotlight is an ego boost that too many poets strive and manipulate for. I do not care for the spotlight, although can apreaciate the honor when it is given, its set up currently as a popularity contest.
But we do need a way to spotlight quality work and the current star system does that. We just need to eliminate downvoting to manipulate spotlight results. The the rating/voting system retains it’s honesty and privacy to protect from popularity and privacy issues.
Although I would love to see a place were every one was honest enough the whole issue was a mute point. But that just not the way most large groups of people can work. There will always be a bad apple downvoting and insulting some poet or other and driving the vain need of “Knowing” who could dare, as well as manipulate our honored rating system.
Keep the old system, eliminate the removal of stars and keep the ability to add them. AND VOTE AND COMMENT YOUR MIND! Respectfully!
Julie
I think you are right
I think you are right Proprietess. The new system is not going to produce the results we seek. And eliminating the competition of the spotlight should be the focus.
A rotating top ten is still a popularity contest that can be manipulated, but any voting/rating system is, nor will it ever be absolutely fair. So I could agree with your Idea over the current trial set up, but I still feel removing the the ability to remove stars would prevent later down voting and manipulation of the system. While maintaining the drive to go comment and rate other work. With out fear of persecution or watered down comments and votes.
I am glad you could join the conversation and you and Nina, as well as many other’s have very valid points and opinions, that I hope everyone reads.
Julie,
I have been rolling around a NEW Idea folks.
Yes! hear here! We comment only because we are Care! Or why would we bother.
And I did catch your previous mention of what you believe is the actual problem with down voting Nina, and I respect your view, but have to say that your issue is not the same as mine. I believe people should feel free to leave 1 and 2’s on any poem as a their prerogative to use their 1 vote as they see fit.
I believe the problem later lie’s with CHANGING the vote to manipulate the spotlight results. That’s where it get’s dishonest and underhanded, I believe 1 and 2’s should not be looked at like a poetic death sentence.
SO A WAY TO SOLVE THAT ISSUE I HAVE been cookin’ up! But like the rest it will have it’s negative’s, starting with being a whole new Idea. But also some great positive’s.
So high lightning my new Idea and pro’s and con’s of it. I came up with less con’s and think I should spit it out for all to consider. It is a NEW idea, and not a re hatched one.
So we want quality feed back, right, we have requests on our submission page, and Generally those request reflect the actual information we all really value.
So what if we make it more like a predictable grading system, with the best grades being the work eligible for Spotlight. What we would mark in the “review request” would determine if we even are putting a piece up for spot light.
Review Request (Intensity):
N/A
Please use care (this is a sensitive subject for me, do not critique harshly)
I appreciate moderate constructive criticism
I want the raw truth, feel free to knock me on my back
Let us know your preferences on how intensely you would like your poem critiqued.
SO if a poet pick’s “N/A” or “use with care”, it will not run for the spotlight, I believe we all agree it’s workshop so if your not liking to be critiqued, it not the point of being here and those poems should not be in the running for Spot light. So comment poster’s who forget to not be harsh, never even get the rating opportunity to possible offend the Author.
But when we choose “I appreciate moderate criticism” or “I want the Raw truth Knock me on my back” we open up the star system to come in to play.
Review Request (Direction):
What did you think of my title?
How was my language use?
What did you think of the rhythm or pattern or pacing?
How does this theme appeal to you?
How was the beginning/ending of the poem?
Is the internal logic consistent?
Please do not critique mechanics. The inconsistencies in style are intentional, or correcting them is not important to me.
Then we ask what you like to be rated on, currently ” 6 ” questions. So we could switch up the question’s so there was 5 questions, like we have 5 stars, if need be, but we could also add a star, or even more questions or stars if we choose.
Then only in the comment preview we would be asked to rate a star for each question. Each star only being it’s own individual star, not a scale rating just a vote for or against whether in our opinion the Author achieved each question.
What did you think of my title? * {* is representing a star}
How was my language use? *
What did you think of the rhythm or pattern or pacing? *
How does this theme appeal to you? *
How was the beginning/ending of the poem? NO {*} NO
Is the internal logic consistent? *
My imaginary grade is now a 5/6 of a 6 star possibility. Obviously only being used as an example of the possible direction we could take.
So we would still give open opinions in the comments and get specific, but it would normalize a grading process, with set questions with simple yes the author achieved the goal, or no the author did not, which we don’t have to say, we just don’t rate equaling No star.
Put’s the exact questions we are all initially asking when we submit a poem for input, on specific direct grading in a yes or no answer, and set’s a standard to grade on. Therefor a fairly level field to “Grade” from.
CHANGES IT FROM A VOTE TO A GRADE. With the best “Grades” making it to spotlight, possibly in a top ten rotation to highlight a wide variety of work and poets.
I do still think we need to maintain privacy and only show people the average of each grade, to prevent suggestive grading by knowing other poets votes. And to prevent singling people out resulting in eventual persecution for some one’s individual opinion and grade. Humans can be easily influenced by their peers, which does not give accurate feed back.
But I think the individual result’s SHOULD be available for the Author. Which give’s us the ability of knowing where we need to improve our poetry. So like a report card, specific and available, but not public.
SO WHAT DO THINK OF THAT NOTION FOLKS, did I rework the whole situation and revive it with meaning, or is it a plain horrible Idea, no offense will be taking either way. As long as it is not doing any negative down talking, I want to hear what you ALL think.
One final note, I still personally like the same old system, only with no ability to later remove stars, while still being able to add them for improvement.
But I also am a creature used to compromise, and have the best interest of the community as a whole when I argue and write so much. I think the current/old system gives us motivation to get out and read, comment, and rate. To be involved, and be able to except all levels of critique. Which in it self, is a lesson of character.
As well as maintaining a private atmosphere that encourage’s honesty, not a watered down popularity contest meant to appease people vanity’s and enable them to base response’s out of comment content and not voting status. Or as in the above proposal of a Grading status, which could still obviously be manipulated.
But I believe the new idea above would at least give people more specific feed back to work from, answering specific question no matter the graders desire to comment. There is flaw in every option.
julie
Thanks for the recap Nina, I sure we all needed it. I alone have tossed out ton’s of Ideas, admittedly I haven’t run accross any that lack flaws, but you did forget my favorite and personal pick for what I would like to see happen.
9. Keep the old private star system, but remove the ability to remove stars, only add for improvements on the poem.
It offers the least amount of change and specificly targets the down voters trying to manipulate the spotlight. The Bad apple’s that started the problem.
As well as maintaining a private atmosphere that safe guards against any forms of persecution and encourage’s honesty, not a watered down popularity contest meant to appease people vanity’s and enable them to base response’s out of comment content and not voting status.
Then I like #4, #1, 3#, #6, 7#, 8# and 2# in that order. I not so sure about #5.
But in my opinion, ALL of those suggestions are better than the current trial.
And there has been several comments on how the current trial is going and how people think it is working and I hope we are all reading how other’s feel about the issue.
I have stated my feeling and why I feel it is not working, if anyone wants me to clarify it again. Let me know.{hehe}
In Recap of my view, it is to protect against even the tiny possibility of people feeling persecuted and Neopoet being based on a Democratic priciples, so should stick close to the fundementals of a Democracy, which almost universely protect the secreat ballot. And in my opinion has already effected the quality of the voting. As well as noticing people are already giving extra attention to the people they “know” vote. While ignoring well thought out critiqes from people who don’t.
And the current trial really does not prevent down voting or help with the competition of poets trying to reach the spot light.
Julie
D.D.
By the way guys, since we are already in to a trial of a system I don’t like, I feel the extra preasure to try to state my side, because I am already in the minority. So I can find a little understanding for people not appreaciating the leagnth of my comments, but since my side is not well represented, I have to been even more out spoken to try and protect the rights I already have as part of this community, in favor of just surrendering them for a system that add’s no improvement or solve’s any issue’s.
But what ever the results end up being, I will respect the choice the community make’s as a whole, in the worst I won’t vote and will stick to my comments and at the best, maybe we will find a soulution we can all like and agree upon.
HERE’S TO HOPIN’, GO NEOPOET!! Thank you to every one who has been patient with me, it’s not always the easest task. Life with out passion is boring.
D.D.