Regarding Nominations

It was my first time in a long time to have used this option and I just realized how easy it was. WAY to easy in my opinion.

I suggest that once a senior member has decided to "vote" for a poem to enter a weekly contest, they must be directed to a window where they explain why they think the poem is deserving of a nomination. Much like how one is to explain why a given comment should be praised. And the mod or the person in charge gets to decide whether the nomination is just and sound, if not, then it is rejected and the option for nomination returns back to the member.

I understand that this may seem to have no possible effect for the results of the winners since at the end of the week, it is not the quanitity of nominations that wins but the quality of the poem which is judged by a great team of people. But I trust honestly that the members who nominate may share insights that could possibly influence or strike concern for the board who analyzes the poems. Sometimes, even the committee who chooses the winners may overlook somethings that could add for a poem's quality.

Benefits:

1. Avoid poems that needs a whole deal of work away from the nominated list. Or try to avoid "biased voting"

2. Enhance the committee's judgment on crossreading the poem (like I said, a member may actually give a normal poem its right if he/she defends the poem justly and well, which may further help the committee into picking the winners)

3. Help our members take care of their vote and clearly READ the poem better. (some members may just be impulsive in voting the poems, or read a poem just once and then immediately vote for it without clearly understanding and crossreading it)

4. ... further, this could help our members read and write poetry better.

Concerns:

1. May annoy some members and complain why the poems they nominate keeps getting rejected

^ to fix this, the member should be able to contact one of the committee and ask why the vote was rejected

2. Add more work for the committee - It would be best for the committee to handle such task collectively. Accepting the nominations must either come from the right authority and must shortly discussed as well by other team members.

^ can't be fixed really. Such decision must really carry a load of work. (I actually think it'll be better if we have a MONTHLY poetry contest instead than weekly since this could inspire our writers to take their writing seriously, but I bet the coding for that is troublesome and that the owner of the site has the last say on it)

* I guess if the member who nominates the poem has given a constructive comment to the poet, then he/she is allowed to just copy and paste the said comment to the explanation box.

Its a good exercise for a poet to write a reflection whenever they read poems, this suggestion must influence such activity.

Interesting Idea Auzzy, I'm sure the current mods will discuss this and possible add it to the 'honey do list' for Janis.

I really like this idea. After all more thought should be put into 'submitting' a poem to the weekly contest. I think it pushes the nominator to really evaluate the poem and give thought as to why this poem deserves to be considered for the front page.

There are drawbacks as you mentioned however. Committee members already have to read all of the poems submitted anyways. So it's not like it'd be creating more work. Actually could possibly eliminate some.

Some poems obviously speak for themselves but if that's the case it should be easier to back up the claim as to why one is voting for the poem.

The 'friend' problem I don't see ever really going away. It's a shame as it in my opinion sometimes wastes a vote. I think committee members should possibly look at the senior member voting trends.

I would actually like to see a rule put in place where each senior member who participates in voting, they must submit from 1 new artist out of the 3 votes they have. This way it promotes the newer or unseen members of this site. It causes senior members to search for good poetry instead of just going to their friends profiles or favorite poets. I see a lot of the same names put up as HM and winners. It'd be nice to see the front page branch out a bit more to the members who perhaps aren't as active on these forums or in clubs.

I usually nominate my friends poetry because I read theirs, and its how we became friends in the first place. I start reading someone's poetry, and I love the style and what they have to say, comments get passed around, and eventually we start talking. That has happened with almost all of my friendships here. So to say I have to find one new artist.. I look, constantly. But I try not to nominate a poem already nominated (if I find others I like) to open the selection up. It's hard to find someone different every week. I send probably five hours a week scanning and reading poems from newbies or people I don't know, and its hard to find something I like.

I think with this we could have a lot of drama from it. Imagine people getting upset because they couldn't nominate a poem, or their poem wasn't even deemed okay enough to get on the.list. Would the committee be the judges? Would all have to agree? I'm sure two judges would love a poem that the other three don't like. That's how we always have such a big list of HMs, because everyone has different opinions.

Some people don't want to learn, they write because it's therapeutic , and its just for them, so you have to be careful when you talk about pushing people to be better. Some write as a hobby, or to release. Not all are competitive with their skills. Just my thoughts.

Interesting idea, Amanda. :)

But then, what if you can't find a new poet to vote for? Does that mean you only get to use 2 of a possible 3 votes? Some might just use it for petty and nominate the best possible poem from a new poet yet the poem may not be worthy.

"Some people don't want to learn, they write because it's therapeutic , and its just for them, so you have to be careful when you talk about pushing people to be better. Some write as a hobby, or to release. Not all are competitive with their skills. Just my thoughts."

^ this is exactly my concern. I understand this is a poetry site, not some therapy session. And the judges aren't suppose to be therapists.

I'm not saying that. But people don't always write for the contest, so when they actually get nominated and then get told "nah, you're not good enough for the nomination list"...I can see more complaints than not.

I'm still not sure how the committee would work. Would it be the judges, or a "separate" committee?

Oh, I think we misunderstood each other... I do not aim for the judges to reject the nomination because the poem is disqualified, but the "comment or explanation" why a senior member regards the poem as worthy.

Its just way too easy to nominate a poem, I think it'd be best for our members, committee, even the poet who wrote the poem, if there's a thorough and sound explanation (even just 2-3 lines) why they think the poem deserves nomination. Instead of just *click* *click*, poem nominated.

I'm still not sure how the committee would work. Would it be the judges, or a "separate" committee?

^ either or both

This shouldn't be much of a hassle for the members, if one can't take a few minutes to reflect or analyze a poem they think worth to win the contest, then their vote must be returned until they do so. It may sound like a strict policy, but its about time we start focusing our members to be poetry oriented.

Ohhhhh okay. I'm sorry I read it wrong the first time. I generally ask a lot of questions when confused lol.

Yeah, it'd be nice if a comment was required. I sometimes nominate when I see a poem I love, but I always go back to comment.

No problem. :)

I just think that if we're required to provide an explanation why we think a comment is praise worthy, then the same must be required when we nominate a poem. Not just out of formality, but for the benefit of the reader, poet, and committee.

So essentially it would be like the way the praise system works now? Where you explain why you feel this comment should be praised.

Yes, pretty much.

(unless the praise system works differently now than it used to be 2 years ago, I haven't used it recently)

Nope, still works the same as before. We just have different guidelines for the mods accepting the praises rather than accepting anything that comes through.

Adding onto this a bit I think you should have to leave a comment on the members poem before you nominate it. I always see people nominating poems but -never- comment on the poem, or go back later and comment. Not sure why this happens.. if they liked the poem that much you'd think you'd comment, right?

^ Yes, that's my heavy concern. The comment, could be the explanation as well (or vice versa) if the member wishes, just a simple copy paste.

I clearly need to read into things better, haha! I agree with that wholeheartedly.

This would need some coding, but I like the idea of needing a comment in order to nominate a poem (with the same structure as praised comments).

What I'm still a bit hazy on is the nomination rejection... would that aspect be necessary? Or, would the only nominations rejected be things like "great poem, 5/5, contest winner?"

I think it's like the idea behind the way you guys accept praises - if the comment is "gud wrk, 5/5", you wouldn't accept that.

^ I think that would be for the committee to decide. It doesn't have to be too strict I guess.

rejected nominations, like the example you gave, just returns back to the member with notice. So he or she does not completely waste a vote, but is just encourage to give a better comment/explanation than "its a great poem that made me feel in love again!!! <3" so his/her nomination could be approved.

I also like the idea of requiring at least one comment for a poem to be nominated. How could we do that without Janis?

You can't do that without Janis unless you bypass the system which I wouldn't advise.

Wouldn't want to do anything illegal.

I AGREE