Since when does one need *Rules of Engagement*? Since the *knitting circle*, imo. So what happened after all these years? The knitting circle became what the site is *demanding*. There was a time engagement happened because it was as natural as breathing...as natural as writing poetry.

Politics can be a focus of poetry but should never enter its hallowed doors...

Hey, I'm a fan of what works, what skillful means means when it is applied. Apparently, something isn't working and it needs a look that maybe comes from outside the box.

Just sayin'.

Keep writing and peeling back the layers.

;-)

Hi Richard, in my recollection, there was no *problem* before the site crashed. Folks wrote poems, commented. Folks also got over shit, if it happened. When it was *resurrected* a few months later, the site had changed. The more rules governing, the less participation. And of course, coincident to that life happened. The feel of Neopoet had changed.

The critiques of comments/commentary and the critic is childish and sets of camps of polarization. Adults don't complain to the management (this is a poetry site, ffs!); adults work out their problems. That's called participation in the democratic process

And maybe that no longer happens in real life any more. And I live in a dream world.

Love ya. right back at you.

Btw, Jess. I love you too, but you see the difference between you and Richard? Moonman didn't take it personally, as you did in your response.

Thank you, Mark. Your answer is much appreciated.

The only qualifier I make now is that *democratic process* gave Americans Trump, as well as Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.

So, in the end it's all about the evolution of the poet as well as the site, here @ Neopoet.

~Anna

How have you decided on the number of credits?
Why three?

I think if it would be possible to give different amounts of credits in accordance with the quality of the critique, it might help to avoid spam.

Also I have an idea! How about allow premium members to have extra credits? That might make a difference for some people who likes to post but not to comment.

I would like to know how many reads my poems get. I do not currently see this information.

The 3 critique incentive is possibly the most important change to Neopoet since the introduction of the one poem a day rule. Critique is our life-blood. It is what makes us exceptional. Most of us are very happy to offer critique and help other poets in any way we can but it is not easy, it requires thought, compassion and generosity. When it is not reciprocated it can start to feel like a chore.

We can only help when members submit poetry they want to work on and who will at least respond when critique is offered. Apart from the very rare genius of the like of Esker nobody can post a poem more than once a day that they genuinely want to workshop.

The three comment incentive is not arbitrary or mercenary it is of value to everyone. As I've said before we learn by thinking about and offering responses to others as much as we do from study or receiving critique. I will not offer critique to anyone who gives none, whatever their self-perceived mental incapacity, not even if paid to, I would firmly oppose an exception to this incentive for Premium members or anyone.

By crikey I do love to help but I am not into enabling egocentric 'poets' who not only won't help others but actually don't really want to learn and grow in this gorgeous art and craft.

When it comes to the referendum please support it. Everyone will benefit.

I think everyone has had a fair chance to voice their opinion and contribute suggestions about the proposed changes to decide on a criteria to promote critiquing poems of fellow members. It is now becoming more of arguments and counter arguments which I believe will create more animosity among members.

You will agree that a fair chance is also given to all members to vote for positions in AC through a very unbiased democratic process and those who occupy the positions invest a lot of resources principally by way of time. We should therefore recognize their efforts to continually improvise this workshop site. There would always be differences of opinion and what is expected is that the AC would go by consensus. Personally I too have an experience where even though I comment / critique on others poems very few do that for my poem. But it would not help the cause if i go on arguing against the proposed changes rather than look at them objectively and holistically.

I therefore make a fervent appeal to suport / accept the decision which the AC would arrive at and move on...

thanks and regards..
..............................................................................................................

everybody to support this initiative. It would be worth a try and if the requirement proves too onerous it can always be changed or even eliminated in the future..............stan (scribbler)

From my perspective
My eyes already blurred and burning from reading all the comments just on the first thread. After concentrating, reading and commentary on two poems or so Im blinded for weeks literally is why I’m not as active but wishes to do more
With that said, I agree with the concept of getting more commentary, suggestions and critique on others poetry but I also feel a strict rule of this sort will drive down membership and many will become inactive more so or move on.
As been said, Neopoet has always been flexible and rules are meant to be changed.
I think a naturally inspired Neopoet works best. how we do that takes creativity.
I know my poems and comments are infrequent, but I’m on board with commenting before posting poems.

Here we are exchanging opinions about the proposed revised criteria for posting poems in addition to 1 new poem per day and I see total domination of Stream 1 and 2 [under Track all site site activity] by poems of Mark.
.......................................................................................................................

I found the suggestive thought of sharing commentary on poems of 3 poets before posting my poem today welcoming and mentality stimulated inspired interaction for poems of others.
Being a stick to structure type human at outset of any project I welcome the flexibility this project will take us.

A lot of discussion here, amongst the AC, the Trustees and the Directors. No blood has been drawn and I suspect we may be close to the ultimate significator of human discourse and civilisation- consensus.

Not for me to say but I'm sure we will have a result that is both beneficial to all and detrimental to none, soon.

If a poet can't find anything good or bad to say about 3 of the poems posted by other poets, and expects comments to be made about their poems. (i.e. Hooray for me!) I don't think that contributes to the idea of a virtual workshop. This is not a private club, it's a workshop. I don't see the problem. It sounds like a spoiled child "O, do I really have to comment on other people's work? That's not fair!!"
Like gimme a break

..

is a great idea. Trying to quantify quality of comments really doesn't work without complex rubrics, but going with a median word length and making that a minimum to be counted sounds like fair.

Totally willing to try this. I know I would be one of the few who would likely never be slowed down in terms of having to meet my comment quota in order to post, so it may not even affect me at all, but I hope folks will at least give it a try and take it as a means of encouragement instead of a means of stifling.

Kelsey

Is the frame work for this proposal now crystallized to be a policy? Just curious...
..............................................................................................