Write-offs; are the rules different?

susanwhipple · #1 01-05-2002, 08:59 PM

Is it just me? I have seen several comments lately alluding to the fact that the typically accepted "rules" (for lack of a better word) don't apply when contributing to a write-off.

In particular, I have seen comments saying write-off contibutions are widely accepted to be for entertainment purposes only- not information and high ratings based on creativity and ability to stay within the write-off 'rules' rather than in successfully describing the product. People have actually left comments stating that what they would normally write like or rate like goes out the window when write-offs are involved.

Again, I ask- Is it just me? I thought the purpose of write-offs were to challange people to write about things they normally wouldn't or to bring attention to a particular product/service or any number of other purposes- not just to see how riled your group can get the editors of a certain area.

I know this is not a post-EBD phenom. This has been argued (even her) ad nauseum. It just bothers me to see relatively new people accepting this a fact not as aberration.

**slick4591**[$] · #2 01-05-2002, 09:14 PM

My thought. A write off should be designed to stimulate a writer to write an on topic review within the limits of the write-off. If it isn't designed that way, there is no challenge. Anyone could just throw a bunch a words down and put a tag on it. That sucks!

kurt_messick · #3 01-05-2002, 09:24 PM

I've participated in many write-offs. I've never not followed the general rules of posting -- i.e., on topic, relevant, striving to be helpful, etc.

The challenge has always been (for me) either to find something that fits the general theme, or, if the write-off is focusing upon a particular product, to be creative enough to be distinct from the other posters.

kuuleimomi · #4 01-05-2002, 09:29 PM

Most of the write-offs have special rules, but they should only challenge the writers to write according to those rules and to Epinions rules.

Finn

susanwhipple · #5 01-05-2002, 09:51 PM

You know, this whole thing has me about as...well, as mildly irriatated as I ever get about something that doesn't matter all that much in the great sceme of life.

Anyway, I took a hot shower and cooled off so to speak. And somewhere in between lather, rinse, repeat I got a germ of an idea for a write-off that will help to express what I'm feeling (that dang mild irritation)

Big problem with that idea though- I've never hosted a write-off (only ever participated in one) and have no clue. Anyone out there good at hosting? If so- email me at wwhipple@nycap.rr.com

Any serious offers will be considered

kuuleimomi · #6 01-05-2002, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by susanwhipple

Big problem with that idea though- I've never hosted a write-off (only ever participated in one) and have no clue. Anyone out there good at hosting? If so- email me at wwhipple@nycap.rr.com

Any serious offers will be considered

You prefer CV or resume? Cover letter needed?

Finn

susanwhipple · #7 01-05-2002, 10:05 PM

a list of your acomplishments to date would be apreciated.

jo.com · #8 01-06-2002, 10:09 AM

As one who has in the past participated in many write offs, other than EBD, they have been "real." I am not r/r this latest one and find it offensive. EBD had a point. I haven't a clue what the point to some of these are - I don't even find them entertaining.

Some of the best reviews I have read have been in write offs.

susanwhipple · #9 01-06-2002, 11:17 AM

I know that, Jo. I guess that's what gets me. Write-offs have typically been wonderful and impressive collaborations. The majority of them are. Every 3 months or so there has been one that seems to have no purpose other than to be devisive. It saddens me to see others express the opinion that this is the definintion of write-offs.

Grouch · #10 01-06-2002, 01:39 PM

As someone who has participated in several W/Os (and organized one [harder to do than it appears]), I've always thought that all normal "rules" of Epinions apply to each review submitted as part of the write-off. Some people think W/Os are competitions--to see who can write the best review/essay. That's never been the intent--either stated or implied--in any of the ones in which I've been involved.

Maybe I'm a little off-kilter in my views here, but I think W/Os are simply this:
A bunch of writers who get together in the same place at the same time to write about the same thing (or same topic).

That's what's been so much fun about the ones I participated in--seeing what everyone else had to say about the writer Jim Thompson, for instance. For a brief moment, it felt like we were all sitting at a round table in the Algonquin engaged in passionate conversation.

That, to me, is a successful write-off.

kurt_messick · #11 01-06-2002, 01:47 PM

Quote:

jo.com wrote:
I am not r/r this latest one and find it offensive. EBD had a point. I haven't a clue what the point to some of these are - I don't even find them entertaining.

I guess I'm missing something. This latest one?. I guess I've not heard which one is being discussed.

I'm known to be out of it from time to time.

madtheory · #12 01-07-2002, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kurt_messick

I guess I'm missing something. This latest one?. I guess I've not heard which one is being discussed. I'm known to be out of it from time to time.

I'm guessing they're referring to the Lexiphiliac w/o.

I agree w/ susanwhipple's assessment. The purpose of a w/o is to write on a given topic, not to use as an excuse to litter the site with typed fecal matter.

But actually, once I got past the objectionable stuff, I found the majority of those reviews to be helpful or very helpful and rated accordingly. The ones who just tried to post junk anywhere got pimp-slapped with the NH. Really, they knew it was coming anyway.

kurt_messick · #13 01-07-2002, 07:59 PM

Hadn't heard of that write-off. Like I said, I'm known to be out of it from time to time...

shadow8 · #14 01-07-2002, 09:35 PM

I probably won't win any friends by saying this, but I thought that the Lexiphiliac w/o was pretty amusing. And if you can get past the vulgarity and raunchy humor, you will find these reviews to be fairly helpful and yes, informative.

But the purpose of the write-off has diluted as of late. At first, I remember that write-offs were meant to challenge and stimulate the writer to go beyond the boundaries of conventional writing and be creative--pertaining to a certain topic of course. But nowadays, it looks like we can have a "write-off" on just about anything. Heck, we can have a write-off about the movie we most recently saw...

jkkelley · #15 01-08-2002, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by madtheory

I'm guessing they're referring to the Lexiphiliac w/o.

I agree w/ susanwhipple's assessment. The purpose of a w/o is to write on a given topic, not to use as an excuse to litter the site with typed fecal matter.

Here's the shibboleth of the Lexiphiliac writeoff: many of those in it are disappointed with many of the reviews. Not because they depict grossness, but because they depict grossness for the sake of grossness, which gets tiring and is uncreative. One can only read about so many nether-region discharges, minty and otherwise, before one decides to say the hell with it.

It takes no talent at all to write a review that sounds like a third-stage syphilis hospice. It takes a lot of effort to take a list of words that could be obscene in context and use them innocuously. I worked for over a month on my review, with that goal in mind.

I've exchanged mails with a number of other participants, and I can tell you that many aren't happy with the way it turned out. For many, it was simply Hustler magazine meets South Park .

jkk

Roxymarie · #16 01-08-2002, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jkkelley

Here's the shibboleth of the Lexiphiliac writeoff: many of those in it are disappointed with many of the reviews.
jkk

I have to say I find that odd. To my recollection (correct me please if I am wrong) I don't remember there being a agreement implied or otherwise to make this W/O a contest of most innocuous usage of questionable language. Granted to pull that off is a creative coup as your submission is a grand testament too, but to have thought that would have been the norm in this W/O I really find odd considering the lists of words and participants.

I went into this W/O figuring it would be Hustler meets South Park and with luck a few gems. I have to say I wasn't disappointed.

**amykhar** · #17 01-08-2002, 04:22 PM

Susan,
Grouch wrote a great review on how to host a write off.

Amy

mtbat · #18 01-08-2002, 05:21 PM

the W/O in question. Some of the entries were very funny and very well done. Others were well written, but basicly nothing more than Sensationalistic porn. I've read a few I liked, but more I didn't.

but I don't think that the "rules" of rating should be tossed out the window just because it's a W/O. those who entered the W/O should know that not everyone is going to like what they wrote and those that went "too far" just need to deal with it. A good indication of how much is "too far" would be if the entry is NH'd off the chart. Some of them are-some of them are VH'd for the most part.

Ultimatly, you have to rate as you see fit and if they don't like it-tough tookies.

Fridai

galileo365 · #19 01-08-2002, 05:41 PM

I participated and enjoyed writing my review. It's not like I'm writing for money or anything,, I'm out to have fun and meet some new friends.

{edited by EK}

Don't hate me for my warped and twisted sense of humor.

susanwhipple · #20 01-08-2002, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Grouch wrote a great review on how to host a write off.

Amy

:

Thanks, Amy.

29th_Candidate · #21 01-08-2002, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by madtheory

I'm guessing they're referring to the Lexiphiliac w/o.

I agree w/ susanwhipple's assessment. The purpose of a w/o is to write on a given topic, not to use as an excuse to litter the site with typed fecal matter.

I, also agree w/ susanwhipple's assessment. I'm not personally aware of anyone in the Lexiphiliac W-O taking a position against following the normal site-related rules. In fact, it was the very challenge of working within those constraints, yet with the added burden of the W-O rules, that yielded a positive response from my invitation offer. The idea of a "lexiphiliac," or word-lover's write-off, had a strong appeal for me. While, admittedly, I might have opted for a slightly different word list, my acceptance of the invitation was not predicated on whether "I liked or agreed with the list of words." My word list would have differed from the one used, b/c I would have selected a series of words that had far narrower connotative range and flexibility. I was neither enthused nor "put off" by the W-O's word selection.

There is no "pre-qualifying entrance exam" re: whether the participants understand EP's posting rules, nor should there be. If a poster doesn't have the intelligence to understand or willingness to abide by those rules, he/she is not going to gain some sort of immunity, implied or otherwise, from his/her fellow posters.

If anything, fellow-posters, should be even more encouraged to slap an "NH" on an abuser because the posting non-abuser, by way of name-association, has more at stake than the non-posting, non-abuser, who at least, is not exposed to the reputation-infection the former might contract as a consequence of swimming in the same swill-suffused pool-water left by the abuser.

Since epinions apparently intends for the community to decide what is/what is not abusive, there will, necessarily, be a "range" of grades representing the various community attitudes re: what does or does not constitute abuse. Somewhere in that range, it's more than likely a member or two, who are either ignorant of, or abusive to, the epinions TOS are bound to crop up.

I understand there will inevitably be community members who have different ideas about what various rules mean and how they should be enforced. I am not troubled by these different interpretations. It would not only be silly, but foolish and illogical for me to insist that anybody who fails to partake of my interpretation of these rules, or ANY rules for that matter, is by default, a misguided abuser.

My only problem is with those who have either no "code" at all, or who use their purported adherence to a purported code inconsistently; with passion and committment when it expedites their needs or desires, with utter obliviousness and nonawareness when the opposite situation exists. I genuinely feel pity for those people with whom I interact, who assume we live in a black/white, wrong/right world. It seems, w/o variation, that those intolerant folks I've met who DO assume this, do not as they contend, "adopt a view or interpretation b/c it is right," but rather they determine that a view or interpretation is "right," b/c they've adopted it.

How do I know this? I was talking about how I get when I am being ignorant, foolish and illogical. It would of course, be presumptuous of me to think that this occurs to anyone besides myself.

--Jim (29th)

29th_Candidate · #22 01-09-2002, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by susanwhipple
I know that, Jo. I guess that's what gets me. Write-offs have typically been wonderful and impressive collaborations. The majority of them are. Every 3 months or so there has been one that seems to have no purpose other than to be devisive. It saddens me to see others express the opinion that this is the definintion of write-offs.

Susan--

Are you absolutely certain that this write-off is, as you say, "devisive?" Assuming, arguendo, it is devisive, have you determined what it is about THIS write-off that makes it devisive, in contrast to the other write-offs which "...have typically been wonderful and impressive collaborations?"

I have, for myself, found that people are divisive; "write-offs" are just write-offs.

Oh, yes...

Quote:

How do I know this? I was talking about how I get when I am being ignorant, foolish and illogical. It would of course, be presumptuous of me to think that this occurs to anyone besides myself

Of course it would only be fair of me to also acknowledge that I am quite presumptuous much of the time, but then again, I'm also quite unfair much of the time too.

Hmmmmm-m-m-m-mmm...

Better forget I said anything... (Assuming you cared enough to read, consider or retain any of it to begin with, of course.)

madtheory · #23 01-09-2002, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jkkelley

I've exchanged mails with a number of other participants, and I can tell you that many aren't happy with the way it turned out. For many, it was simply Hustler magazine meets South Park .

jkk

That's one of the reasons I avoided it. I actually wanted to join because I had a review that would be perfect for it, but then I remembered all the people who posted BS during the EBD and figured that they'd probably consider this EBD part 2. I'm assuming that's why Annex changed it to a closed write-off.

Really I was afraid the abusers would take it over. There wasn't as much bad stuff as I thought it would be, though.

kurt_messick · #24 01-09-2002, 02:14 PM

I suppose I'm glad I didn't know about this, then...

#25 01-09-2002, 04:05 PM

Oh, feh... I might as well chime in with the obvious.

If the mechanisms within Epinions or the supporting documentation don't make any mention of write-offs, then Epinions doesn't expect them to be treated any differently than other reviews. They also firmly believe that the mechanisms that they have provided (ratings, web of trust, comments, blocking) allow for the implementation of schemes to handle any philosophical differences or methods that the writers and/or raters may employ.

Whether or not this belief is sound is a whole other matter... whatever puts food on the table and keeps their names off the next round of pink slips is probably of a bigger concern.