One Final Rant

[WickedEve]

huh?



no problem at all, just the whole interpretation of "active" thing, 'tis all-- your interpretation (which I share) is not the same as Lauren's or Laurel's or Mark Twain's and I do not think he ever wrote a terzanelle, but I hear they are great with powdered sugar

oh no, i'm getting the smartassy huh. i knew it would find its way back to me.

 

[TheRainMan]

Luigi's? I thought you looked familiar!

glazed with chocolate drizzle...
come here, you got some on your chin...

Things always taste better dripping down the chin, don't they?

 

[duckiesmut]

Things always taste better dripping down the chin, don't they?

Gives up figuring out my checkbook register for the evening.

 

[annaswirls]

Things always taste better dripping down the chin, don't they?

I am not sure, I am not generally a dribbler.


okay I lied. I am a dribbler.
And a compulsive thumb licking face cleaner too.
I would never be a good spy. I could not even lie about dribbling for more than two return keys.

Jack Bauer would look at me sideways and would have to torture me to shush up now.

 

[annaswirls]

oh no, i'm getting the smartassy huh. i knew it would find its way back to me.

smartassy? oh I prefer it sans "mart"
sassy.

there that sounds much better

I knew you would be waiting for the "huh?"
so I figured I would jump on the first opportunity

 

[tarablackwood22]

all over again

The same thing as last year IS going to happen, if there is no clarification before the voting starts.


Here are Laurel's words:

In this category, please nominate the poet who affected you the most in 2005. Whose poems did you seek out and enjoy? Who made laugh/cry/etc.?

Poet must be an active Literotica poet who submitted poems during the year 2005.

One nomination per member, please. If multiple nominations are made by a member, only the first listed will count.

Nowhere does it say the poems still have to be on the site.

Yet here is the interpretation of those words used last year:

"Poet must be an active Literotica author who submitted stories during the year 2004." - I take that to mean that the poet must have submitted poems during 2004 and still have them on the site (active).

Which is it? Does or doesn't a poet need to still have their 2005 poems up at the site to qualify?

Will the moderaters please clarify this now, before the voting starts.


Love and white wishes to everyone

 

[WickedEve]

I sent a PM to Laurel:

There are posters on the poetry board wondering exactly what active member means. You wrote, "Poet must be an active Literotica poet who submitted poems during the year 2005." What if someone submitted poetry in 2005 but removed it during 2005 and no longer has poetry/stories submitted but is active on the board?
I hope you can answer this, because it is a concern for some posters.

Thanks,
Eve

I'm guessing since she states clearly "who submitted poems during the year 2005" that it means exactly that. Submitted poems in 2005. But I could be wrong, since there were problems last year. I'll let you know when I here something. Maybe some others have PMed her with the same question. Anyone else have any information?

 

[annaswirls]

All I know is what happened last year. The wording did not change. The word that you missed in the quote was "active" that is where she got the-- has to have poems published at the time of voting. What a shame! I hate this because I think that poets who do not have poems published here can be equally influential as those who do not, as there are many ways to post poems here.

I understand the "shush and maybe no one will notice" technique, but honestly, that would not work Would be nice if it did in this case. No one squeeked last year and all who did not have poems were removed. Laurel checks. She actually removed 1201 (for the second time) last year because she was looking up "twelveoone" and there were no poems there. No one has to squeek or squeal, it is part of the process she goes through automatically.

I corresponded a great deal with her last year, because of 1201, Pat, Tara, and the screw ups about people not knowing that the nomination process is NOT a traditional nomination process, it is really a first round of voting (and there are a lot of virgins born in the nominating process, not just in the final voting as suggested earlier) After I told her I wanted my poems pulled, she asked for my opinion on how to improve lit, I gave many suggestions on how things needed to be clear, etc etc etc etc and nothing was changed, so apparently it was not seen as a problem by the powers that be.

Thank you Eve, for writing to Laurel. As a moderator, you have a much better chance she will get it.

 

[WickedEve]

All I know is what happened last year. The wording did not change. The word that you missed in the quote was "active" that is where she got the-- has to have poems published at the time of voting. What a shame! I hate this because I think that poets who do not have poems published here can be equally influential as those who do not, as there are many ways to post poems here.

I understand the "shush and maybe no one will notice" technique, but honestly, that would not work Would be nice if it did in this case. No one squeeked last year and all who did not have poems were removed. Laurel checks. She actually removed 1201 (for the second time) last year because she was looking up "twelveoone" and there were no poems there. No one has to squeek or squeal, it is part of the process she goes through automatically.

I corresponded a great deal with her last year, because of 1201, Pat, Tara, and the screw ups about people not knowing that the nomination process is NOT a traditional nomination process, it is really a first round of voting (and there are a lot of virgins born in the nominating process, not just in the final voting as suggested earlier) After I told her I wanted my poems pulled, she asked for my opinion on how to improve lit, I gave many suggestions on how things needed to be clear, etc etc etc etc and nothing was changed, so apparently it was not seen as a problem by the powers that be.

Thank you Eve, for writing to Laurel. As a moderator, you have a much better chance she will get it.

I'll be out later today, but if/when I hear anything I'll let you know. Actually, we need to get Lauren to find out.
Anyway, I just read through part of this thread. I remember now there was a big mess about you and 1201 not being on the list. Then Tara was removed. Did she ask or did Laurel remove her? If the poems do need to be online, then that does need to be mentioned on the awards thread. The way it is currently stated, it seems you only have to have submitted poetry in 2005. I'm sure you and many of us will feel very sad if Pat isn't able to keep his nominations. Like you said, she'll eventually check on his status. I don't plan to mention it to her, though.

 

[PatCarrington]

Tara was removed. Did she ask or did Laurel remove her? If the poems do need to be online, then that does need to be mentioned on the awards thread. The way it is currently stated, it seems you only have to have submitted poetry in 2005. I'm sure you and many of us will feel very sad if Pat isn't able to keep his nominations.

tara was removed incorrectly last year, in my mind, whether she had poems still posted here or not (unless she requested removal, which may be the case).

are posted poems the only way to be influential? i think not.

as far as i am concerned - most of you know why i took my poetry down. it was certainly not because i did not want them here. they had all been accepted for publication elsewhere, and to leave them up would have jeopardized their publication status, as well as made me dishonest, since i promised exclusivity to many journals upon publication. i have since tried to link those that are on-line in my signature line.

most of you also know where to find my most recent poetry here at Lit, if you wish to.

for those of you who don’t, it can be found here:

.............................................................H / L

 

[WickedEve]

Hi Eve,

Thanks for writing, and Happy New Year!

By "active member", we mean that the member is still on Literotica - that they haven't cancelled their acount - and that they still have poems on the site. When the awards are decided, the winners will be linked on an Awards page for the general readership to view and enjoy. With so many active poets who chose to stay with the site and who have wonderful work worth sharing with readers - it seems unfair to link readers to an empty or non-existant page.

I will clarify the term "active member" on the poet contest nomination page. I believe it already states that the nominee must have poems currently on the site, though.

Hope this helps, and hope your 2006 is wonderful thus far!

Take care and talk soon,

Laurel

 

[Angeline]

Hi Eve,

Thanks for writing, and Happy New Year!

By "active member", we mean that the member is still on Literotica - that they haven't cancelled their acount - and that they still have poems on the site. When the awards are decided, the winners will be linked on an Awards page for the general readership to view and enjoy. With so many active poets who chose to stay with the site and who have wonderful work worth sharing with readers - it seems unfair to link readers to an empty or non-existant page.

I will clarify the term "active member" on the poet contest nomination page. I believe it already states that the nominee must have poems currently on the site, though.

Hope this helps, and hope your 2006 is wonderful thus far!

Take care and talk soon,

Laurel

Thanks for posting this Eve. When it is clarified on the awards page, those of us who nominated people who do not currently have poems on site can change our nomination if we so choose.

And damnit Patrick, one poem wouldn't kill you.

 

[annaswirls]

I have to say I feel like a bitch for continuing with this, but I believe that people who know me will understand-- I am going to try to explain once more, then I am done, it is all there.

In my mind, as well as yours, Patrick, Tara should have been eligible and SO SHOULD YOU! But what is "incorrect" or correct, it is Laurel's interpretation of "active"

Tara did not ask to be ineligible (she was not removed, she was never on the list even though she had the nominations) No one asked her to be removed. No one wrote Laurel and said-- hey she does not have poems up. It is just part of what Laurel does (according to Laurel)

1201 was deemed ineligible for the second time-- even though he was nominated as often as the others because Laurel checked the wrong name to look for his poems and so of course there were none there, even though he had just gotten an e from her.

I was ineligible because I removed my poems and had none current during the voting, as annaswirls at least.

My point is: If we do not work this out before the voting starts, Laurel will do the same thing as she did last year, the wording is exactly the same as last year, so I cannot guess why she would automatically change her interpretation of "active" I could look for the pm I had from her when I wrote protesting Tara being ineligible, but that is exactly what Laurel's interpretation was.

tara was removed incorrectly last year, in my mind, whether she had poems still posted here or not (unless she requested removal, which may be the case).

are posted poems the only way to be influential? i think not.

as far as i am concerned - most of you know why i took my poetry down. it was certainly not because i did not want them here. they had all been accepted for publication elsewhere, and to leave them up would have jeopardized their publication status, as well as made me dishonest, since i promised exclusivity to many journals upon publication. i have since tried to link those that are on-line in my signature line.

most of you also know where to find my most recent poetry here at Lit, if you wish to.

for those of you who don’t, it can be found here:

.............................................................H / L

 

[annaswirls]

Thanks for posting this Eve. When it is clarified on the awards page, those of us who nominated people who do not currently have poems on site can change our nomination if we so choose.

And damnit Patrick, one poem wouldn't kill you.

Seriously Patrick, just post a floozy!

 

[annaswirls]

most of you also know where to find my most recent poetry here at Lit, if you wish to.

for those of you who don’t, it can be found here:

.............................................................H / L

Well damn, people just change the name of the nomination and it is settled!

 

[PatCarrington]

Thanks for posting this Eve. When it is clarified on the awards page, those of us who nominated people who do not currently have poems on site can change our nomination if we so choose.

And damnit Patrick, one poem wouldn't kill you.

i just pointed to them on the post above yours.

if the PatCarrington nominations have to be changed to TheRainMan, that is fine with me.

if they can't be, that's fine too. as is the removal of my name, if that is what the intricacies of voting in an anonymous world require. as far as i know, i'm the only poet here who attaches their real name to their tag....Sabina, perhaps. i can't think of any others, off hand.

TheRainMan gives me the opportunity to 'unattach' it.

thank you, Ange, and to all the others, for bringing up my name. it's very humbling.

 

[annaswirls]

i just pointed to them on the post above yours.

if the PatCarrington nominations have to be changed to TheRainMan, that is fine with me.

if they can't be, that's fine too. as is the removal of my name, if that is what the intricacies of voting in an anonymous world require. as far as i know, i'm the only poet here who attaches their real name to their tag....Sabina, perhaps. i can't think of any others, off hand.

TheRainMan gives me the opportunity to 'unattach' it.

thank you, Ange, and to all the others, for bringing up my name. it's very humbling.

There should be no reason it cannot be changed. You are you, and you deserve it, a rose by any other name...

 

[Angeline]

Well damn, people just change the name of the nomination and it is settled!

I did.

And his post just saved me the trouble of pming tungtied et al.

 

[Angeline]

i just pointed to them on the post above yours.

if the PatCarrington nominations have to be changed to TheRainMan, that is fine with me.

if they can't be, that's fine too. as is the removal of my name, if that is what the intricacies of voting in an anonymous world require. as far as i know, i'm the only poet here who attaches their real name to their tag....Sabina, perhaps. i can't think of any others, off hand.

TheRainMan gives me the opportunity to 'unattach' it.

thank you, Ange, and to all the others, for bringing up my name. it's very humbling.

You didn't know my real name is Angeline Poet Chick? (Poet is my middle name.)

Eventually to be Angeline Poet Chick-Eyez. (I never thought I'd hyphenate, but oh well...)

 

[TheRainMan]

Seriously Patrick, just post a floozy!

Damn, that Carrington guy is one pain in the ass, ain't he.

You didn't know my real name is Angeline Poet Chick? (Poet is my middle name.)

Eventually to be Angeline Poet Chick-Eyez. (I never thought I'd hyphenate, but oh well...)

you learn something new every day.

i'd reconsider the hyphen though...too tacky.

Eyez looks just wonderful to me.

You are you, and you deserve it, a rose by any other name...

 

[tungtied2u]

you learn something new every day.

i'd reconsider the hyphen though...too tacky.

Eyez looks just wonderful to me.

Let me get this straight- you're recommending Angeline Poet Eyez

I thought she already did...was...ummm...both

 

[SeattleRain]

Damn, that Carrington guy is one pain in the ass, ain't he.

not compared to anna that is for sure
I locked her up.
you wanna go get some pastries?

 

[TheRainMan]

not compared to anna that is for sure
I locked her up.
you wanna go get some pastries?

uh huh.

 

[TheRainMan]

Let me get this straight- you're recommending Angeline Poet Eyez

I thought she already did...was...ummm...both

what's in a name?

if you're wonderful, you're wonderful.

she is.

 

[SeattleRain]

uh huh.

wow your vocabulary just shrunk down to two letters and I have not even brought out the panties I mean pastries