We start again
To seek the pain
(Hey, ho, type and go)
And prose express
Under duress.
(So early in the morning)

With words be thrifty,
Just 750.
(Hey, ho, type and go)
Write not of Pone,
The tale’s your own.
(So early in the morning)

Within these straits,
Step to the gates,
(Hey, ho, type and go)
A prompt allot,
Choose aught but ‘Ot’!
(So early in the morning)

There’s no use hiding–
We’re expediting
(Hey, ho, up-all-night!)
Our tales exciting,
So start offWriting!
(The deadline’s in the morning!)

On behalf of GGA, author of this poem.

Now's as good a time as any to make my return to the Writeoff. It's been way too long.

>>FloydienSlip
Welcome back! Glad to have you on board again!

im just writing in lowercase to annoy you

I don't know for what purpose, but this really annoys me.

Oh man. I almost want WriteOff Topia to win, but I'm not sure I could do a decent characterization of anyone in here.

>>MrExtra
That'd be a pretty fun excuse for everyone to make a self-insert story.

>>Zaid Val'Roa
Anonymity be dammed, just this once.

It would make the city really crowded really fast.

I'm pretty sure Majin will be forced to vote for "im just writing in lowercase to annoy you" out of principle.

>>Trick_Question
If that wins, would we have to write all minifics entirely in ironic lowercase?

>>Zaid Val'Roa
I WOULD PROBABLY DO THIS. BUT NOT TO ANNOY YOU.



:trollestia:

Let's not do WriteOff Topia, because it's very, very limiting.

>>Figments

>user joined in 2012
>0 entries, 1 post
>this is that one post

>>Cassius
1 Post every 5 years in September.

>>Cassius

And it's a pleasure seeing you again, too, Cassius.

"Quill X Eva Vortex"

Now that's a prompt.

Well, I don't have the excuse of a hurricane bearing down on me this time, so I guess I'll give this round a go.

Hi, Andrew here!

Welcome to the Writeoff! It's always been a dream of mine to make something special out of the things I love. Now that you're signed up, you can help me make that dream come true in this cute competition!

Every day is full of chit-chat and fun activities with all of the adorable and unique Writeoff members:

Cassius, the youthful bundle of hate who values mockery the most;
Ranmilia, the deceivingly cruel reader who packs an editorial punch;
Monokeras, the French and mysterious one who finds comfort in deleting his stories;
...And, of course, Andrew, the genre hack of the Writeoff! That's me!

I'm super excited for you to read stories from everyone and help the Writeoff become a more intimate place for all its members. But I can tell already that you're a sweetheart—will you promise to rank my story the highest?♥

This competition is not suitable for children or those who are easily disturbed.

Welp, time to over think and over write things again.

>>AndrewRogue

Cassius - Tsundere
Ranmilia - Kuudere
Monokeras - Dandere
AndrewRogue - Deredere

SELECT YOUR WRITEOFF WAIFU

>>AndrewRogue

This competition is not suitable for children or those who are easily disturbed.

Yep, there are some pretty weird stories here and there. Damn these authors.

>>Someone Else
What, no yandere option?!

0/10, would not waifu again :-p

>>CoffeeMinion
The category is made available on a while supplies last basis only.

>>CoffeeMinion
I believeth the reason why such an option as... yandere... isn't included is because this peculiar waifu is of the trash!

Meanwhile, my waifu values a class of sophistication and grace. Such a measly waifu as yours could never hold a flame near the value of mine!

*laughs pompously with class*

>>Fenton I blame Dr. Seuss.

And here I find that all my Writeoff-related emails have been going to my junk box for some reason. I thought it was odd I hadn't received any notices in a while.

I may be obligated to join this one just to make up for my absence.

The ______ of Choice: Syzygy, Identicality, Chicanery? Last Chance! This Can’t Possibly Win.

Laser Beam! Once Upon a Burning Sky. To Whom It May Concern: I Need A Hero. I am writing normally to appeal to you, The Last Zombie on Earth That Is Not Dead. False Skin? Necessary Evil. No More Laughter! …In Theory.

The Butt Stop: Quill X Eva Vortex? WriteOffTopia! Take a Knee Against the Wind, Keep You on Your Toes, Enemy Mine.

Today Marks the Day I Sold My Soul For… Poetry! An Ocean of Artistry For Sale, Big Wave. And All Are Now Twice Damned. Look on My Works, Ye Mighty, and Despair!–

im just writing
in lowercase
to annoy
you

Relative Time Travel! Everything, All at Once. Tales of the Future, Blast from the Past. Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow. Where Are Those Who Were Before Us?

The Last Minute, Time and Again. If They Liked It Once, They’ll Love It Twice.

Wait For The Ricochet!

ive been forced to petition for "im just writing in lowercase to annoy you" to win. it isnt mine, but i want it to win.

>>Cassius
I'm pretty sure it's just your imagination.

I have voted. Now I expect all the rest of you to pick my prompt.

"This Can't Possibly Win"

I smell some reverse psychology in this one...

>>MLPmatthewl419
Hmm...

>>GroaningGreyAgony
James Joyce is that you

What's the prompt?

>>Philosophysics
Will be revealed tomorrow. Today is for voting on it.

>>GroaningGreyAgony
Is it just to win? Last time you liked my writing. You were never mighty. No need to appeal to what they’ll love. Look, your works take everything butt despair. Chicanery be damned. A burning artistry that today, tomorrow, and yesterday marks where twice upon us travel tales of soul. And for the theory of writing, the time you normally keep from enemy and evil, for a false concern they may not stop in the future.

Hero, Earth can’t wait a minute more. I once sold ye to the zombie, who should identically wave those dead. I, an ocean of laughter, whom Syzygy annoy. I am the skin on sale. The sky, the wind, the vortex are necessary, relative, and possibly lowercase.

Now for my poetry:

past on once,
twice,
X this ricochet last

if im last on it,
in Eva once,
against blast, chance, choice

big beam laser knee, toes
before it day again all mine
all do at the quill

WriteOffTopia!

___Done___

>>Dolfeus Doseux
Hey, welcome back! Nice to have you around!

-insert joke about scrambling to submit story at The Last Minute-

I funny wheeee :>

Aww, man. I was hoping it would be one of the other ones. Had a story idea all worked out and everything! Now I gotta beat my head against the wall for the next 6-12 hours and hope something shakes loose.

First one in. Will write another, and it’ll be enough.

Hunh. Twice in a row, my prompt won and I don't actually have any ideas for it. :P

What to do....sigh. Still short.

This week's prompt describes when all Writeoff writers submit their entries.

>>Remedyfortheheart
Rémy!!!

Ever get those moments when a story pops into your head, fully formed? It just did for me. Let's see if I can do it justice.

Finished!

And setting an alarm for 4:59 AM so I can submit it in accordance with this round's --

>>FrontSevens
dang it, dingus, stop stealing all the good jokes

>>Monokeras
Thank you. I'm glad to be back, but I don't know how glad you will be once this round goes live, since original minfics are the perfect Petri dish for my brand of Joycean excursion.

It's been almost a year:

Since I've managed to put together something for a minific round. I'd forgotten what maddening fun it is!

Mike

Submitted. I'm worried people will legit dislike me for this story. :<

I'm sorry in advance, but I had feelings D:

Bleh, probably not entering this round. It's unfortunate, because OFMini rounds are my best chances at writing something I could edit into shape for an actual lit mag. Just not in the right headspace to think up a whole new world and concept today, even knowing that it would inevitably end up being a litfic. Sorry, friends.

First draft is finally done; it only took me all day. Here's hoping I can stay awake long enough to submit.

One is enough. In fact, it's more than enough.

Maybe I should do more than more than enough.

One and done!

...Maybe.

And it is in, folks. Let's hope I don't disappoint anyone other than the standards I had in my head for my entry.

Submitted, but I don't feel good about my chances. It was good practice at any rate.

So I finally submitted my story. I gotta admit, it's kinda strange even by my standards.

Will bonus points be awarded if I submit mine within the last sixty seconds of the event?

Suck on it, cold. I'm done.

Now I'm gonna let the cold medicine finally knock me out.

I actually submitted something I think is not trash for once!

That's, uh, not to say I think it's good. I still wish I came up with a better idea. But at least I didn't write a random comedy in the last hour! Again.

And done. Let's see if I can make up for all the lost years.

Well, there's my "story" in. I see a lot of people saying their entries are pretty strange, so that makes me fell a little better.

i did it this time guys

Submitted! Look upon me and despair! My second original round ever. Hopefully it'll run a little better than last time.

Oh little red dot
you will be the death of me
Come, let us embrace.

I wrote a thing woooooo.

But only one thing.

I am in, with an ill-favored thing.

Oh wow... I actually used the margin time for editing this go. Yikes! Never a more appropriate prompt! :-P

Ironically, I looked at the prompt for the first time just now. :facehoof:

*this is subject to change. I will post an update if we need to rearrange.

If anyone else is doing off-slate reviews, there are two stories left with only three reviews:

The price of magic
Epithalamia

>>Ranmilia
On Poetry Voting: A Socratic Dialogue

1.

PLATO: I must bottom-slate this poem, because the Writeoffs are a place for fiction.
SOCRATES: What a curious proposition. Do you claim this entry is non-fiction?
PLATO: By definition, sir. It falls under a classification of writing works which are not labeled "fiction". See here, on this bookshelf, "poetry" is Dewey Decimal 811, and "fiction" is Dewey Decimal 813.
SOCRATES: Interesting. Here is Of Mice And Men under 810, not 813; is it then also not fiction?
PLATO: No, Of Mice And Men is fiction.
SOCRATES: Yet it is filed under "Literature".
PLATO: Literature is a type of fiction.
SOCRATES: Is poetry a type of fiction?
PLATO: By definition, no. Fiction means prose fiction.
SOCRATES: I am not certain I understand your words! What, then, does "fiction" mean?
PLATO: I just said!
SOCRATES: So you claim "fiction" means "prose fiction"?
PLATO: Yes!
SOCRATES: But then the word fiction within "prose fiction" means also "prose fiction", and thus to eternity.
PLATO: No, that "fiction" means "Tales about untrue events."
SOCRATES: So "fiction" has two definitions!
PLATO: Yes, at different times.
SOCRATES: Maddening! How does one tell when this strange recursive definition applies instead of the stand-alone one?
PLATO: Context! See, every single other writing contest, such as Futurescape, distinguishes between fiction and poetry.
SOCRATES: By fiction, there, you mean "prose fiction"?
PLATO: Yes.
SOCRATES: How do you know that Futurescape uses "fiction" in the sense of "prose fiction"?
PLATO: See, they say so.
SOCRATES: Where?
PLATO: In the contest rules: "Entries must be works of prose".
SOCRATES: That is a queer statement indeed.
PLATO: On the contrary, it is clear as day.
SOCRATES: What is queer is that they have to make it.
PLATO: What do you mean?
SOCRATES: You claim that they use "fiction" to mean "prose fiction".
PLATO: Yes.
SOCRATES: Then why do they not say "Entries must be works of fiction"?
PLATO: Because they seek to make a point of excluding poetry, the same way the Writeoffs do!
SOCRATES: How do you know the Writeoffs seek to exclude poetry?
PLATO: The Writeoffs say that entries must be works of fiction!
SOCRATES: Do the Writeoffs say that entries must be works of prose?
PLATO: That is implied in "fiction"!
SOCRATES: Futurescape does not think so, if they declare it a fiction contest and then must make a specific rule about prose.
PLATO: Well, then Futurescape must be using "fiction" differently.
SOCRATES: I thought you said that all writing contests used "fiction" to mean "prose fiction".
PLATO: Clearly not them.
SOCRATES: If it is not universal, then how can we be certain about the Writeoffs?
PLATO: By examining their rules.
SOCRATES: Which specify only "fiction".
PLATO: Yes.
SOCRATES: So why should I assume the Writeoffs use "fiction" to mean "prose fiction"?
PLATO: Everyone does!
SOCRATES: Except for the examples you yourself provided.

---

2.

PLATO: Well, I think the Writeoffs should be prose only.
SOCRATES: You are entitled to that opinion, as unusual as it is.
PLATO: And I shall arrange my ballots accordingly.
SOCRATES: You are entitled to vote based on your preferences.
PLATO: By ranking all poetry, sight unseen, below all prose.
SOCRATES: That is quite a breathtaking statement. On what grounds do you declare poetry prima facie worse?
PLATO: Not that, but that poetry does not belong in the Writeoffs.
SOCRATES: Why?
PLATO: Writeoff voting should measure the relative quality of pieces in the round, and it is impossible to measure poetry and prose against each other.
SOCRATES: Why should that be impossible?
PLATO: Different writing forms have extremely different writing processes and requirements.
SOCRATES: Let me digress a moment. Do you enjoy the great comedies; say, Aristophanes?
PLATO: Why, yes.
SOCRATES: And the great tragedies; say, Aeschylus?
PLATO: Of course.
SOCRATES: Which has a higher relative quality?
PLATO: I should say that for my own tastes I prefer the comedies.
SOCRATES: Not your own tastes. Which is better, comedy or tragedy?
PLATO: There is no way to objectively say that.
SOCRATES: And yet you compare comedies and tragedies in the Writeoff?
PLATO: They both use the same writing skills, and it is those skills which can be objectively compared. Poetry uses different skills.
SOCRATES: Poetry's skills are unjudgeable by the prose reader, then?
PLATO: Assuredly.
SOCRATES: *reads* "I'd put it around an unimpressive midtier, that high only on strength of prose and general writing level …"
PLATO: Don't be pedantic, old man. There are certainly areas of overlap I can judge in poetry, without making a statement on the whole.
SOCRATES: The same way that comedies and tragedies have areas of overlap?
PLATO: They have much more overlap, and more important overlap.
SOCRATES: Why is more needed, if you can already make a judgment on a poem's quality relative to the rest of the slate?
PLATO: But this is about fair judging.
SOCRATES: The Writeoffs suggest that if you cannot judge fairly you have the option of abstention.
PLATO: That does not correct the issue. Nobody can judge between poems and prose fairly.
SOCRATES: You did.
PLATO: Not fairly.
SOCRATES: Can comedies and tragedies be judged fairly, if they cannot be objectively compared?
PLATO: They can be judged more fairly against each other — sufficient to Writeoff standards.
SOCRATES: Bad Horse did not think so.
PLATO: He is a philosopher before my time.
SOCRATES: Indeed. In 2013 he caused quite some drama when he publically declared that he would penalize all comedies in his voting, and rate all tragedies higher, to compensate for the community incorrectly judging their relative quality.
[Note: This isn't idle philosophical musing; it actually happened — as a for-real stand of principle. -ed]
PLATO: That would be his right.
SOCRATES: As it is yours. But your sole ranked entry thus far contained comedic elements. Were he here and voting, would you feel it was fair were he to bottom-slate it due to its comedy?
PLATO: Fair or not, his voting is his business.
SOCRATES: Very well. If everyone were to vote in that fashion, would you still find the judging results useful?
PLATO: Not when comparing comedies to tragedies, but otherwise, let us say yes for argument's sake.
SOCRATES: Why?
PLATO: Because, on the whole, we should trust Writeoff readers to judge entries based on quality.
SOCRATES: Yet you advocate that Writeoff readers treat genre as a larger voting factor than quality.
PLATO: Voting is meaningless unless all voters have that right.
SOCRATES: There we agree. But if some other voters decided to — say — vote all comedies below all tragedies, how could you trust the results to describe relative quality?
PLATO: Perhaps … by comparing in the results list only stories of like genre, mentally subtracting the others.
SOCRATES: Can you not already do that with poems?

---

3.

(SOCRATES wanders off to take a drink and HORIZON takes his place.)

PLATO: Let us set aside the topic of voting. Poetry does not belong in the Writeoffs.
HORIZON: Why?
PLATO: I come to this site to learn how to write better.
HORIZON: And you cannot learn from poetry?
PLATO: By comparing pieces, I learn from the better of them. I cannot usefully compare poetry against prose.
HORIZON: Earlier you directly ranked the textual quality of a piece of poetry against the textual quality of its prose competitors.
PLATO: But poetry cannot teach me about … say … issues of structure, or theme, or pacing.
HORIZON: …Have you read poetry? Aside from the words, that's virtually all you can critique it on.
PLATO: Those skills, in poetry, do not transfer to prose. The forms are too different.
HORIZON: The opening scene of Administrative Angel begs to differ.
PLATO: That's a prose story! It just has a poetic textual gimmick.
HORIZON: Does the gimmick make it worse prose? The poetic stretch is one of the most frequently praised.
PLATO: You should be able to write well without gimmicks.
HORIZON: I can. I write better yet with them, properly applied. And that's a skill poetry teaches me.
PLATO: Fine, poetry can teach you gimmicks. It can't teach you better prose.
HORIZON: No love for crisp dialogue, then? Lyrical descriptions? Tight limited narration with distinctive character voice? How can a deeper understanding of the cadence and consonance of words not improve your prose?
PLATO: That's still not the sort of writing improvement I'm talking about.
HORIZON: More fool you.
PLATO: You keep dodging my point. A poem is obviously and clearly unlike a prose story.
HORIZON: Disagree. Go from 750 words down to 100 and it's basically impossible to tell the difference.
PLATO: We're talking about longer stories than that.
HORIZON: Fine. So, what writing lessons are you hoping to learn which poetry cannot teach?
PLATO: Telling a full story that fits into only 400-750 words. Struggling to get your story under 750, cutting sentences and paragraphs.
HORIZON: . . . . .
PLATO: Keeping text tight and lean —
HORIZON: Are you freaking insane?
PLATO: …Rude, sir.
HORIZON: Poetry is, like, defined by its density! If you want to write tightly you literally write a poem! You cited with no apparent irony how poetry which tells complete stories struggles to reach the lower word limit, and you don't think prose writers can learn lessons about tight and lean text from it?!
PLATO: You take me out of context. When I made the statements about 750-word prose skills, I was talking about judging fairness.
HORIZON: Well, I agree, the Writeoffs are unfair to poetry.
PLATO: Excuse me? On what grounds?
HORIZON: To start with, there are readers who bottom-slate it based on form alone.
PLATO: Please don't attempt to suppress my voice.
HORIZON: I'm not asking Roger to discard your vote. I am, however, arguing that you're wrong to do so.
PLATO: Not so. Poetry here scores higher than it should. Gimmicky entries get voted up and uncritically praised.
HORIZON: The piece you're debating on is, by your own admission, a strong and accessible poem with coherent narrative and thought behind it — and yet comments are a solid wall of "eh, high middle tier".
PLATO: Even that is artificially inflated. Note that commenters are also saying they aren't qualified to analyze poetry's shortcomings.
HORIZON: And yet they're regularly happy to vote as if they are. Poems end up near the bottom all the time; in fact, that's kind of their default state, without you adding gratuitous genre penalties. Just last round, Luna upon Sulva scored 16th out of 20 (with, as far as I know, only you being a tactical downvoter; and multiple Writeoff heavy hitters commenting that it was finalist-quality).
PLATO: Plenty of other gimmicky pieces get high ratings they don't deserve.
HORIZON: Citation needed, because I think you can look at comments of other gimmick pieces — and the ratings they've gotten in previous rounds — and very clearly see that if there's nothing there but the gimmick, voters are more than happy to bottom-slate.
PLATO: Ah! But all other things being equal, gimmick plus quality prose will outscore plain quality prose.
HORIZON: I'm not sure why this is a surprising statement, nor even something to be corrected for.

---

4.

(SOCRATES wanders back in.)

PLATO: Let us discard the topic of poetry entirely. There was nothing here to convince me to change my course. The fact remains, I have an opinion about the nature of the Writeoffs, and my voting is an outlet through which I might shape them.
SOCRATES: Let us return to that, then. Why do you value the Writeoff voting results?
PLATO: I do not currently.
SOCRATES: If you did, what would you value in them?
PLATO: Reliable judgments on the relative quality of entries.
SOCRATES: But only prose entries.
PLATO: Yes, unless an all-poetry round were called.
SOCRATES: Do you believe — if poetry were to vanish from the rankings — that you could trust Writeoff voters to make that quality judgment?
PLATO: Let us suppose for argument's sake that I do; for if I doubted their judgment in other areas, such as prompt adherence, then we could have a separate conversation on that topic.
SOCRATES: Then we are back to our prior conclusion. Why not treat Writeoff poem entries as if they do not exist — not only abstain in voting; but refuse to read or review them, and mentally subtract them from the rankings list — and declare your poetry problem solved, with no further ill will on either side?
PLATO: Because I wish to incentivize prose entries from authors who would otherwise write poetry.
SOCRATES: And what of the poets who wish to incentivize you to broaden your horizons?
PLATO: Our interests are incompatible.
SOCRATES: And must this result in a conflict with a winner and a loser?
PLATO: It is worth it, if it rids us of poetry.
SOCRATES: If it comes to strife, who decides which faction should prevail?
PLATO: The answer must be the standards of the community.
SOCRATES: And so you present your case to the community, leading by example?
PLATO: Yes.
SOCRATES: By prioritizing genre over quality in your voting?
PLATO: It is defensible because the other genre does not belong here.
SOCRATES: Does the community believe that it is defensible? If not, you are likely to provoke more hurt and outrage than change.
PLATO: I doubt the community shares my opinions on poetry; that is why I make a point of announcing my course.
SOCRATES: I would agree. Over time, I would estimate an average of one poetic entry per contest, from a fairly large subset of authors, to a wide range of final scores. You yourself note that many major literary contests divorce prose and poetry submissions — yet no explicit distinction is made here.
PLATO: To the Writeoffs' detriment.
SOCRATES: There are several significant ways in which the Writeoffs are different from those contests. Perhaps it would serve you to question why.
PLATO: Why do you continue in your defense? All of my writing circles would simply hold poetry's disqualification to be self-evident; this site is the only venue I've ever encountered where people consider it debatable.
SOCRATES: Then it sounds as though you have never actually interrogated the reason why it is so.
PLATO: What's the need? By definition, good writing means writing to what the majority considers high-quality.
HORIZON (shouting from the next room): Bro, have you seen the Featurebox?
PLATO: … let me try that again. I want to be able to trust this place to make similar distinctions as the other venues I already hold in regard.
SOCRATES: By adding more doubt on the relation of voting results to quality?
PLATO: Then let authors write prose! If everyone did, the doubt would be moot.
SOCRATES: You hope your incentive will aid in forcing the issue, then.
PLATO: Yes.
SOCRATES: Do you think that the next round is the earliest time at which fellow Writeoffers might respond to your incentives?
PLATO: How else could they?
SOCRATES: Well. If you liked comedies, and I declared my intention to bottom-slate all comedies while voting was still ongoing, what would be your most rational remedy?
PLATO: A Prisoner's Dilemma response. Tactically voting as well — top-slating comedies in my own voting.
SOCRATES: Should you do so?
PLATO: I'd have that right. And it would be in my self-interest.
SOCRATES: Would it be fair?
PLATO: Would it matter? If widely done, the results would be a battleground, with ranking determined only by number of partisans. Such as the Hugo Award voting in recent years, with a small Puppy minority pitted against a larger entrenched community.
SOCRATES: Is that, then, what you seek?
PLATO: Of course not.
SOCRATES: But you continue in your own tactical voting course. So you believe that other participants should act against their self-interests and not change their own behaviors when tactical voting occurs?
PLATO: For the good of the community, yes.
SOCRATES: So you believe community standards should be, for comity's sake, to not penalize tactical voting. What, then, as a voter, is my incentive not to tactically vote against genres I feel are inferior?
PLATO: … Community standards.
SOCRATES: Will those stop you?
PLATO: Perhaps, if community standards actually disapprove.
SOCRATES: Do you believe the community does not disapprove of tactical voting?
PLATO: For argument's sake, let's say that they do not.
SOCRATES: How, then, do you think the community would react if a rogue author tactically placed high-quality stories at the bottom of their slate, in order to maximize their own chances of winning a medal?
PLATO: They'd report him — and if not, they should.
SOCRATES: But not you?
PLATO: It's different!
SOCRATES: How?
PLATO: The medal-seeker's self-aggrandizement is unfair to the medal chances of everyone but themselves.
SOCRATES: So is tactically voting against genres or forms. That unfairly restricts the writing options of all entrants beyond that explicit in the rules, or else face known penalties on their medal chances.
PLATO: Shaming my voting unfairly restricts me!
SOCRATES: It encourages you to alter community standards in other, more robust venues. Debate. Appeal to Roger. Call a vote for a rules change. Request a trial round with different rules from the usual.
PLATO: All those methods are much less effective!
SOCRATES: Yes, and you very well might not get your way. However, occasional compromise is the price of civil society.
HORIZON (shouting from the next room): FOR GODS' SAKES CAN WE PLEASE HOLD A MINIFIC ROUND OF 500-1000 WORDS
SOCRATES: …Case in point.
HORIZON: WHY DOES NOBODY ELSE APPRECIATE THE GENIUS OF THE IDEA

---

Full disclosure: I did not write a poem this round.

>>horizon
Uh, wow. So borderline personal attacks, casting yourself as Socrates and a "Writeoff heavy hitter" and likening my position to malicious voting that "the community would report." That's not very classy, I'm sad to see it, and you're still wrong. You're drawing a false analogy between comparing different genres of fiction (comedy vs tragedy, fantasy vs realistic drama) and different forms of writing (poetry, prose). I do think that comedy and tragedy can be fairly compared; Bad Horse's position is quite fascinating and I'd love to have seen it and debated it at the time. But no, the ability to fairly compare pieces that differ in some respects does not imply an ability to fairly compare between any sort of difference.

The fact that some gimmicks do get voted down does not change the issues involved. The problem lies in the process, the results are merely an illustration. (Also I think you confused my comments on Start Recursion with comments on poetry.)

SOCRATES: It encourages you to alter community standards in other, more robust venues. Debate. Appeal to Roger. Call a vote for a rules change. Request a trial round with different rules from the usual.

I have done, and continue to do, exactly these things. If you read my posts on previous poems, and the discord logs of #fic and #meta (admittedly somewhat tedious since it's been a while now) you will find me attempting to advocate for poetry-specific rounds, or for people to vote for prompts that could feasibly lead to at least informal poetry-encouraged rounds. I was unsuccessful.

SOCRATES: How, then, do you think the community would react if a rogue author tactically placed high-quality stories at the bottom of their slate, in order to maximize their own chances of winning a medal?
PLATO: They'd report him.

.

Err, ahahaha, what? No, no they certainly wouldn't. They didn't. I am quite certain that this exact thing has absolutely happened in at least one round since I've been here, and nobody cared. I attempted to raise the subject, but was immediately discouraged and shamed both for suggesting that it might have occurred and for suggesting that it might be a problem in need of address. I was told that the community prefers that everyone vote according to their own standards, and no one has grounds to question anyone's ballot for any reason. That's the atmosphere I'm operating under here.

The community consensus at the moment seems to be to not even enforce the few rules that are explicit. So I've given that up as lost. I don't put any stock in the results. They are not currently useful. So I, too, act autonomously. If it would be largely preferred that I do not do so, then I will happily cease and depart... but the comments I have received in private about these subjects have not indicated that this is the case. Rather, I keep hearing people tell me "I agree with you but I don't want to get into a slapfight with Horizon and Dubs." Or with less polite invective and more leaving the site and "Jesus, [name of controversial piece omitted] medaled? What a joke. Ran, don't tell me this is your main writing group." Truthfully, I myself have little energy left on the subject, and barely mustered up through stress to post this; I will likely leave it here

>>Ranmilia
For what it's worth, I've also gotten private comments saying that voting strategies like yours are the reason that some don't want to compete in the Writeoff anymore—they feel that the room for experimentation is slowly being removed. And for what it's worth, I'm cuter than anyone in any other writing group.

(Also, people have been DQ'd for abusing the voting system like that, albeit not for a long time.)

>>horizon
Yes.

Skipping past points of disagreement for the moment:

>>Ranmilia

I am quite certain that this exact thing [tactical voting down of competitors] has absolutely happened in at least one round since I've been here, and nobody cared.

JFTR, this is the first I've heard of that (as a merely fringe participant in Discord chat, which I guess is where it was brought up). I certainly care. I strongly believe as a statement of principle that tactical voting's the quickest way to light the competition aspect of the Writeoffs on fire, and so if you have evidence of competitor-sabotage voting that's a far bigger deal than anything we're talking about here.

If you're willing, I'd like to talk about that specific thing (via Discord most likely) and if the evidence suggests unusual voting patterns I will join you and go to the mat with Roger (and the community) on that. If you can point to logs I can do my own reading on that and try not to saddle you with the emotional labor of catching me up (though as you say going through Discord backlogs is an exercise in frustration).

Past that:

I can acknowledge that I'm still frankly rather worked up on the rest (as should be obvious by the length and nature of the post). I doubt it's productive to extend the debate here if it's causing you equal stress. I'll extend to you an offer of conversation in another venue, private or not per your choice — once I've had a chance to sleep on this and can promise a more subdued response — to clear the air, should you think that's useful. You made your argument, I made mine, I'll let your rebuttal above be the last word for now.

EDIT: My offer of seriously examining, and aiding-in-bringing-to-light any credible evidence of competitor-sabotage voting, is open to anyone with concerns. @ me on Discord, or PM me there or on FIMFiction.

(And if anyone feels I'm tactically sabotage-voting, well, obviously coming to me with your concerns is awkward — but my voting logs regularly substantially match the round's final rankings, and I'm happy to fully cooperate with efforts to verify that.)

>>Ranmilia
>>Dubs_Rewatcher
>>horizon
I think we can all at least agree that there should be a 500-1000 word round, yes?

Roger? 💋

>>CoffeeMinion
Writeoff NaNoWriMo when?

>>Whitbane
2012, apparently.

(okay it's not exactly 50k but it's still quite impressive for a single weekend.)

>>Ranmilia
>>horizon
>>Dubs_Rewatcher

Just my tuppence.

Well, I don’t want to reopen fresh wounds, but I feel I must say I side with Ran on this one. Poetry is unbelievably hard to assess for ESL people. I’m still grappling with that iambic concept, coming from a language where tonic accent does not exist. Becoming familiar enough with poetry techniques and patterns is incredibly hard, and I wonder if, barring some academics who have made poetry their research field, any ESL people ever does. Also, I’m in a way comforted in my opinion by people like Hat who, despite being natives, candidly admit that their skill is insufficient to properly judge poetry entries.

That does not mean I bottom slate poetry entries, but I simply opt out and abstain. I refuse to rank them. It’s already hard enough for me to analyse and criticise English prose, I don’t even want to dip a toe into unfathomable poetry waters.

Problem is, at that point, that there’s no dedicated space where people wanting to write poetry could compete, and that’s a shame. I wish that minific rounds featured two separate categories, poem and fiction, each with its own thread and scoreboard. To me, this would be far more satisfying than trying and match up entries which, as Ran said, are not competing in the same league.

>>Not_A_Hat
For the record, I'm gonna close the poll when I wake up tomorrow (probably around 6:00 am GMT) rather than tonight (as I'd previously stated), to give people extra time to vote if need be. Sorry if you wanted to vote after then, but we do actually need some time to prepare for the podcast, and I'll be working throughout the day!

>>Whitbane
Hmm, it looks like there's an Original Short round during NaNoWriMo this year. I might have to break my Pony-only rule...

Aw nuts, and the writing day for the next Pony round is gonna be the Saturday of Ciderfest. D:

#FirstWorldPonyProblems

>>CoffeeMinion
Drunk writeoff ;)

>>Whitbane
I am not the one you seek, though you are in his presence

So I'm going to go see a certain movie that opened today. It's about magical horses or something. I don't know, sounded like a Don Hertzfeldt production.

I'm going in about three hours; I'll try it out and see if it's okay for you guys to see (even though I know all of you have already watched it illegally online). Maybe it'll be alright...

So I got back a while ago, and I'll only say this about "My Little Pony: The Movie": It's definitely worth seeing. The movie's a bit lacking in some places, but on the whole, it was very entertaining. I'm definitely going to see it again a few more times while it's in theaters.

The only thing I regret is watching it when all the little kids came to same theater, and there were a bunch of unnecessary comments directed at the screen; whoever said bronies were more obnoxious than 3-7 years old has never been around children in their life. If you go to watch it, go to a weekday showing or a late night showing (or both, if you're resourceful).

So declareth the Liberius Dudester.

I was reading back over old writeoff threads and realised just how long it's been since I've done any mashups...

The Sparking of the Countdown Clock
Gertrude Fremont (Ph.D.) repeatedly jumps from a plane as part of a particularly obscure experiment on mass spectroscopy in exotic spacetimes, and how repeatedly jumping out of planes makes your eyes glow.

IT IS ONE SECOND TO 11:59 AM
In the last minute before a meteor impact destroys all of civilisation, the Gunslinger calmly reflects on the important things in life: tea, whiskey, and shooting kids. Someone says something in the comments about lesbians, and nobody is entirely sure why.

To Save the Goldfish

Samuel loved the TV. He loved it because he loved the people who watched it, since three months ago when they picked him up at the pet store.

But he never thought he'd have to destroy one to save the other.

A Little Story, Even Now
Fair reviuws start thinkong good. Don't tell lyttle epigrams: skow whole ecperiments. Someone exclaims sumething grandiose, except their reaction nefer re-opens suggestions.

Hey guys, looks like I submitted my story at... The Last Minute lululul

oh wait shit

Guys. GUYS. Icenrose is back!! Go say hi or something!

Gratz to Sturm for taking the gold!